Open Q & A
So last Sunday, being the Civic Holiday, there was a rather sparse turnout to the YG. As such, I put off the scheduled topic another week, so that we could actually have some fruitful discussion.
Yet those few of you who actually faithfully read my blog, I don't wish to disappoint you with silence (LOL).
Recently, I've been discussing some of the essential elements of Christianity with a few Protestants, and we wanted to continue the discussion in a more open venue. Basically, the challenge to me was to demonstrate how every doctrine in the Catholic Church is reflective of Christ, and leads us to Him. Good times.
Basically, the way I see this happening, is, if you (Catholic, Protestant, whathaveyou) have any questions about the Catholic Church's teachings on any issue, I will do my humble best to answer them. I'm not an expert by any means, but I know a few, and know good sources (like the Catechism!).
For members of St. Andrew's Youth Ministry, any topic that you bring up, or that interests you, could lead into Youth Meeting talks, so pay attention, participate, and give me your feedback!
Any Catholics who know their stuff are more than eagerly invited to help me out when I don't necessarily know mine! This isn't the Gregory Watson show, after all!
Anyone else, post away!
The Rules are simple: Conversation should be polite, charitable, and respectful, as is keeping with Christian conversation! Slander, insults, or other rude comments will receive due warning once, and deletion twice. If it persists, I will delete any subsequent comments that are not an apology for rude behaviour. Keep it civil--we're all brothers and sisters in Christ (and for any non-Christian participants, they deserve an even greater dose of charity from us!).
Above all: Attacks on a person's character, sincerity, intelligence, or motives are not allowed!
God bless, and let the games begin! ;)
PS. I thought the pic was appropriate--Jesus catching the falling person, or keeping me up so that I don't make a blubbering idiot of myself! LOL Click for full size image.
Labels: Apologetics, Q and A
posted by Gregory at 3:26 a.m.
194 Comments:
Hi Gregory,
I guess I have the honor of the first question. I honestly have no idea what the answer to this may be, but I've wondered about it for a long time:
What does the Catholic church have to teach about the pre-existence of Christ, that is, before He was born in Bethlehem? I've never been able to find it in Catholic literature.
Great idea to field questions in your blog, but one warning: young kids ask the most penetrating, honest questions! :-)
See my 2nd to last post @ reflections - I've got a 'pointed' question re: something from POLD, and I want to make sure its in the right 'forum'
Grace & Peace
Loren, brief answer would be that Christ, as part of the Trinity, God the Son, was divine and present from all eternity, before He ever put on flesh as a man in Bethlehem.
For Catholic sources on that, the best stuff that I've read are really old books written while the debates were still raging!
"The Trinity" by St. Augustine and
"The Trinity" by St. Hilary de Poitiers. When I was in my second year at Bible College, I wrote a paper on the divinity of Christ in Theology, and used much of Augustine's thoughts on the subject, and quoted Hilary extensively. I hope that helps. It's 2:30 currently, and I left my Catechism at work, so that's the best I can give you for now.
For a summation, though, I would point you to the Nicaean Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
He is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
AMEN.
This is the definitive statement of Catholic belief (and, reading the Catechism, it is divided into 4 parts--the first part explaining the Faith of the Church based on this formula).
The reason that the section on Christ is so developed is because it was written as the definitive, orthodox belief contra Arianism and other Christological heresies. I hope it answers your question, Loren. If there is anything further you would like to know, just ask!
Slave, I get any comment posted here emailed to me automatically, so I've seen your comment. I would suggest that here would be the most suitable place for questions, since that was the purpose of opening this thread. So ask away! I'll make a reply to what you wrote at Reflections on Snow later, as well as check in on the action at POLD--but as I said, it's (now) 2:42, and I'm off to bed.
God bless!
Okay, Gregory and Loren...
I'm pretty sure John 1:1-5 answers that question...
Gregory,
Brother, show me ‘the light of understanding’.
At “Substance or Symbolism” you have said,
“Christ Himself is the sole mediator, in the sense that He is the only one capable of bringing us to God and restoring that broken relationship, shattered by sin.” A reference to 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.”
At POLD;
“This is because all authority on Heaven and Earth belongs to Christ (Matt 28:18)”
And the big one:
“I would suggest bringing up topics (or pointing me to threads where those topics have been brought up, perhaps) where you actually don't see how Catholic teaching points to Christ, and I will do my humble best to demonstrate it.”
So I am asking:
If Christ is the sole mediator between God and Man. And “All authority on Heaven and Earth belongs to Christ”:
Why would/should I apply to the (dead) Saints on behalf of the living? Why should I seek intercession through the Saints?
1 John 2:1, “My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.” (crf. Hebrews 7:22-26 “…Jesus (also) become the guarantee of an (even) better covenant…but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them…a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens.”)
Why should I apply to Saints, when the Resurrected Living Christ is our One Mediator, One Advocate, and One High Priest to intercede for the forgiveness of sins and for salvation?
If “All authority on Heaven and Earth belongs to Christ” that would include omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
He, Himself taught us to pray, Matthew 6:9-13, “This is how you are to pray:
Our Father in heaven …” [crf. Luke 11:2-4]
Hi Gregory,
I agree with your statement that
"God the Son, was divine and present from all eternity, before He ever put on flesh as a man in Bethlehem." (Micah 5:2). And I sort of thought that's what the Catholics would say too, but this is where it brings up a little confusion for me:
How then could Mary be called the 'mother of God'? For Jesus has existed from eternity, and He was God already. (I understand that she became the mother of His humanity, to make Him the Seed of David as well, which I would agree with.)
Am I understanding the phrase 'mother of God' too literally, or is ut really intended in the sense of 'mother of the One who is God.'? That has always been an issue in my mind, so I'd like to hear the official Catholic explanation.
I know it's the weekend and you left your Cathecism at work, so take your time. And thanks for your willingness to look into our questions.
Slave, I'm gonna get to the Saints question, I promise! (It was, with Mary, the two questions I was expecting right off the bat, after making the claim that "all doctrines point to and teach us about Christ").
Loren's questions just happen to be easier to explain off the top of my head! LOL
Loren, the title "Mother of God", in the Greek, theotokos or "God-bearer", does not mean that Mary in some way originated God, but rather, the child growing in her womb, the child to whom she gave birth, was in fact God Himself, the Son.
It was originally defined during the time of the Nestorian heresy, which was a form of "adoptionism", where Mary gave birth to Christ's human nature, but not to His divinity. He would not truly be divine until His baptism. The term "Theotokos" was meant to affirm that Christ is indeed God, and God from all time, and that the Man born of Mary is indeed God Incarnate.
Therefore, in this doctrine especially, we see how a Catholic belief that seems at first glance to perhaps not be about Christ, or be only peripherally about Him, is actually all about Him, and peripherally about Mary. Mary is not the Mother of God in her own right, or in the sense that she is greater than or the originator of God, but simply because mothers give birth to persons, not natures. And the person of Jesus Christ, is both fully God and fully Man.
I hope that helps!
Gregory,
Re: Mary,
I understand the arguments, and have read some of them from my library, and your own blog article on Mary -especially the theotokos & chistotokos heresy.
I would observe, though that the title 'Mary Mother of God' only appears in 'The Book of James' (not the letter of James) a book the Catholic Church has declared apocryphal and Not part of the canon...
There aren't too many 'Nestorianites' around these days, but there are a lot of people that look to Mary, 'the Mother of God' to Answer their prayers. I consider this a particularly dangerous thing, especially in light of this entry; "In the Roman Catholic Church, she is called the “Queen of Heaven” and “Fountain of Grace.” There are continuing efforts to secure a papal declaration of Mary as the mediatrix of all graces and coredemptrix, a description popularized by St. Alphonsus Liguori."
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world."
And on an odd note, Gregory, here is one just for you, "The earliest recorded apparition of the Virgin Mary is that of St. Gregory the Illuminator in about 270."
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary
Grace and Peace
Take your time - I'm not on a clock. Besides, I don't blog or email on Sundays, so the soonest I'd be able to read it is Monday any way...
I did post a new article at 'Views' regarding the accusation the Catholic Church 'edited' the Scriptures [http://history-politics.blogspot.com/] It might be worth a look.
Interesting that I read this on the feast day of St Dominic. For me it was his devotion to Mary that first got me thinking that Marian devotion could be powerful rather than dangerous. After that I found so many more examples. John Paul II and Maximilian Kolbe were the big ones. I could not find any basis for this danger that protestants find in Marian devotion.
I guess I would ask you "unchained slave" to document the danger you see. For many years I just assumed it was real with no evidence at all. Is this the case for you as well or do you know of real spiritual harm that Marian devotion has done?
Hi Randy,
Actually you've anticipated something I wanted to ask Gregory about. What Catholics think of Maryology, and what Protestants think they think, could actually be two different things.
I was wondering, Gregory, if you would undertake a new article with a brief apologetic on the subject, so we'd all have some common turf to discuss the issueA As a former protestant, you seem well situated to bridge any misconceptions. You could address David's questions in that posting and then we could go from there.
But if course, it's your blog.
Randy,
This is a hip shot.
Gregory has pointed out repeatedly, that everything about the Catholic Church is 'supposed' to point us to a better understanding and relationship with Christ.
The 'danger' I see as cited above in the quote from "Nelson's New Christian Dictionary" is the idea of Mary being named 'mediatrix of all graces and coredemptrix'. There is one redeemer and one mediator...Christ. Giving 'Mary' an 'equal' position with Christ would certainly detract from Christ.
I see it this way, I am an American. I revere the Flag of the United States. I treat it with great respect and due honor...However, having spent the greater part of my life 'defending' the United States, in the military...I recognize something else. The flag is 'representative' of something else...The freedoms Americans have. That means, while I may find it distasteful, and not like it when I see someone wearing the US Flag as a pair of shorts, or even burning it...I would dishonor myself, my comrades (those who have gone before, and those who still today defend freedom) by 'taking' that right away from someone (without due process of law). While I have respect for the US Flag, it is a symbol of the freedom that allows another to excercise their freedom by burning it.
The same is true of Marian Devotion. If it takes one's eyes off the 'goal' then it is dangerous.
Have I personally seen this, I would say, 'Yes'. I have travelled extensively on 6 continents...I have been to more countries than there are states. I have seen, particularly in third world countries, Catholic parishes where the Mary 'appeared' more revered than Christ.
Hebrews 12:1&2,"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God." (emphasis mine).
If it takes our eyes 'off of the goal' - Jesus - then it is dangerous...
If Marian devotion takes our eyes off of Jesus - then there is DANGER.
If Marian devotion is used to train us as the 'exemplar' of the 'perfect disciple', then Marian devotion is a good thing.
Who am I to judge the hearts of others?
Randy,
Hip-Shot 2:
IF and it is a big IF:
"Nelson's New Christian Dictionary" is 'correct' and there is a movement within the Catholic Church to have Mary named 'mediatrix of all graces and coredemptrix'.
THEN: I would call that prima facie evidence that 'Marian Devotion' is in fact Dangerous...
Like I said, it is a pretty big 'IF'
Blessings in His Name,
If it takes our eyes 'off of the goal' - Jesus - then it is dangerous...
If Marian devotion takes our eyes off of Jesus - then there is DANGER.
If Marian devotion is used to train us as the 'exemplar' of the 'perfect disciple', then Marian devotion is a good thing.
Who am I to judge the hearts of others?
I agree wholehearted here. Where I have changed my opinion in recent years is that I don't see Mary as taking our eyes off Jesus. It's like when you praise Donald Rumsfeld for doing a good job. Would you expect a Bush supporter to say you are detracting from Bush? No, by praising Rumsfeld you are implicitly praising Bush. They are tied together. (this is just an example, please don't start with the politics).
I see this as even less of a problem with Jesus and Mary. Honoring a person's mother does not create problems between you and that person. Jesus is bound by the command to honor His father and mother. We are bound by the command to immitate Jesus.
The real question comes with how much is too much? When are you giving too much attention to Mary? I would ask you how you know you are not giving too little attention to her? Remember the incarnation is one of the key mysteries of the faith and it centers around her.
The mediatrix of all graces dogma is interesting. It tells us something about God more than about Mary. It tells us that God chooses to work through people to give us His grace rather than working directly. That is why we are told to pray for eachother, teach eachother, encourage eachother, comfort eachother, love eachother, etc. God works through people and Mary is the prime example of that. I don't see the danger there.
Wow, get busy on the weekend, and things just take off!
That's awesome!
Randy! Nice to see you around! Thanks for your comments.
Loren, I'm not sure when I'll be doing a Youth Group talk on Mary, but, since this forum was as a secondary purpose a way to generate topics for the future, Mary has jumped to the top of the upcoming list. I'll talk about her by the end of August.
In the meantime, I'd encourage you to check out "Mary: Mother of God, Mother of the Church" (which, notably, so far has the largest amount of comments attached to it! She's definitely controversial).
As a blanket answer (I'll get more specific in a second post after this one) as a Protestant, I remember being taught that Mary would be very upset about the devotion paid to her by Catholics--which was considered by us to be "Mariolatry". During the process of my conversion, at the beginning there were three major hurdles to becoming a Catholic, and they were the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Mary. Ironically, Transubstantiation was both the attraction to Catholicism, and a hinderance. But from the explanations I recieved and the teaching of Scripture, I came to believe it very easily. Purgatory as a belief flowed naturally out of what I had been taught in my Protestant Bible College, and so provided nearly no trouble to me.
But my difficulties with Mary lingered all throughout my study and prayer about conversion. I knew that in fairness I had to be able to embrace the doctrines if my conversion was to be genuine, but my spirit bucked at the idea. The closer I got to converting, the harder I fought against Catholic doctrines on Mary--to the point where I had actually convinced my (now) fiancée that the Church was wrong in its beliefs. Since my conversion, I've had to re-convince her about the truths that the Church teaches about Mary. Oh, the irony.
The key to my understanding and believing was reading about a similar struggle by Presbyterian minister-turned famed Catholic apologist, Dr. Scott Hahn. I saw his book, "Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God" at a Christian bookstore while I was still wrestling with Marian doctrines, and read it. Dr. Hahn opened up Scripture to me in a way I'd never experienced before, and it actually choked me up! The beauty with which God sculpted His Word boggles my mind!
Suffice it to say, I highly recommend "Hail Holy Queen" to anyone seeking to understand Scriptural teachings on Mary.
Randy (and Gregory),
Hold on a second, please.
I think one of us has a misunderstanding of what mediatrix of all graces means (probably me - so correct me if I am wrong).
My undertanding of all the graces would include two graces reserved for Jesus Christ ALONE, namely 'the forgiveness of sins' and 'Salvation' (see my third comment in this thread).
If Mary was 'granted' that 'title' it would elevate her to the Godhead!
I'm sorry, I respect Mary as an exemplar but, she was not 'without sin', she was not 'the son of God' and she was NOT crucified for our sins.
If I misunderstand the meaning of all the graces then please enlighten me. If I'm wrong - I'll admit it, but if I'm right - there is something terribly wrong here...
In Love and Peace, seeking understanding.
First, I want to go back to a not-quite-unrelated topic that wasn't missed, but I was unable to reply adequately earlier:
Unchained Slave asked,
Why would/should I apply to the (dead) Saints on behalf of the living? Why should I seek intercession through the Saints?
1 John 2:1, “My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.” (crf. Hebrews 7:22-26 “…Jesus (also) become the guarantee of an (even) better covenant…but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them…a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens.”)
Why should I apply to Saints, when the Resurrected Living Christ is our One Mediator, One Advocate, and One High Priest to intercede for the forgiveness of sins and for salvation?
If “All authority on Heaven and Earth belongs to Christ” that would include omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
He, Himself taught us to pray, Matthew 6:9-13, “This is how you are to pray:
Our Father in heaven …” [cf. Luke 11:2-4]
To begin, I would point out that in nearly every, if not all, of St. Paul's epistles, he asks the church to which he is writing to pray for him, and for all the churches. In fact, in the very passage that is often quoted regarding Christ being one mediator, St. Paul explicitly tells us to intercede for others:
I urge then, first of all that petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving should be offered for everyone, for kings and others in authority, so that we may be able to live peaceful and quiet lives with all devotion and propriety. To do this is right, and acceptable to God our Saviour: He wants everyone to be saved and reach the full knowledge of the truth. For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and humanity, Himself a human being, Christ Jesus, who offered Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:1-6a, emphasis mine).
We see then that there is no contradiction between offering intercessory prayers for each other, and Christ's sole mediation.
When it comes to those who have died in Christ, their deaths do not somehow exclude them from the family of God. They are not unaware of things going on. In the context of the Mary discussion above, Hebrews 12:1 was referenced with regard to the part about not taking our eyes off Christ, and casting aside all hinderances to that end. However, the reason that the author of Hebrews gives is the "Great cloud of witnesses" that are watching us. Who are they? They are the members of the "Hall of Faith" as chapter 11 is commonly called. These are the heroes of faith that have lived lives faithful to God, and have since died giving testimony to Him. Verse 1 of chapter 12 describes them as the audience in the Colosseum, cheering us on as we run the marathon of life. They are very aware of our lives and struggles, and concerned about us. After all, in Heaven, we are closely united to God, and the things He cares about would logically be the things that we would care about--and God cares about us!
In the 6th chapter of Revelation, we hear of the martyrs who had been slain crying out in imprecatory prayer, "Holy, true Master, how much longer will You wait before You pass sentence and take vengeance for our death on the inhabitants of the earth?" (v.10). Here we see direct Scriptural evidence that the Saints know of the events on earth, and pray to God for just resolution. Is it a stretch to suppose that they could pray for more specific needs?
Later in Revelation we read, "Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. A large quantity of incense was given to him to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar that stood in front of the throne; and so from the angel's hand the smoke of the incense went up in the presence of God and with it the prayers of the saints. Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar [Lv 16:12; Ezk 10:2], which he then hurled down on the earth; immediately there came peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, and the earth shook." (8:3-5).
Here we see an angel bringing the prayers of the saints into the presence of God. Immediately thereafter, those prayers offered to God resulted in His action on earth (also notable that the angel himself enacts God's judgement as a result of the prayers). Whether these are the prayers of the saints in heaven or the saints on earth is really immaterial. The thing to note is that it was an angel who mediated their prayers into the presence of God.
Christ's Mediation is "only" in the sense that He is the only one who could open our way into the presence and Covenant of God. However, we mediate for each other all the time when we pray for each other, and the saints and angels mediate for us when they pray for us as well. This does not detract from Christ's mediation because their mediation is only subordinate to His. In fact, any mediation on the part of anyone other than Christ is only a result of His primary mediation.
On the other hand, their mediation does not mean we can or should go to them instead of Christ. Rather, just like if you asked me to pray for you, but would also pray yourself, when we ask the saints to pray for us, we are marshalling them to our cause as we ourselves come before God. Do we need their prayers? I don't think so. Obviously Christ is sufficient. Are their prayers a great and good gift to us? Certainly. As great and good a gift as your prayers for me and mine for you.
Obligatory Catechism Quotations
A cloud of witnesses
2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom [cf. Heb 12:1], especially those whom the Church recognises as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise Him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things" [Cf. Mt 25:21]. Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.
2684 In the communion of saints, many and varied spiritualities have been developed throughout the history of the churches. The personal charism of some witnesses to God's love for men has been handed on, like "the spirit" of Elijah to Elisha and John the Baptist, so that their followers may have a share in this spirit [Cf. 2 Kings 2:9; Lk 1:1; PC 2.]. A distinct spirituality can also arise at the point of convergence ofliturgical and theological currents, bearing witness to the integration of the faith into a particular human environment and its history. The different schools of Christian spirituality share in the living tradition of prayer and are essential guides for the faithful. In their rich diversity they are refractions of the one pure light of the Holy Spirit.
"The Spirit is truly the dwelling of the saints and the saints are for the Spirit a place where He dwells as His own home, since they offer themselves as a dwelling place for God and are called His temple" [St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 26, 62: PG 32, 184.].
Slave, to answer your Mediatrix question, I'm taking the lazy man's way out, since I've already thoroughly discussed the issue under the Mary: Mother of God thread. So I'll copy-paste the question (from my friend in a Lutheran seminary whom I went to Bible College with), and my answer, here:
Christopher J. Freeman said...
Gregory,
What can you explain to me about the Catholic Catechism regarding Mary as the Mediatrix? I know from reading The Catholic Catechism by, John A. Hardon, S.J., that Mary is united with Christ in a unique relationship such that she birthed Him, endured maternal suffering for Him, and believed Him the Messiah, thus according her merit. I know that that merit is given her by Christ, just as any creature derives merit from its Creator. What I don't quite know how to wrap my head around is this:
1. "Mary has become part of this plan by contributing her share to the justification of the human race, beginning with herself and extending to everyone ever justified" (The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J., p. 169). How does Mary, aside from giving birth to Christ, suffering maternal pangs, and loving Him as He died, contribute at all to our justification? St. Paul directly refutes any notion of anyone else contributing to our justification when he declares that it is through faith alone we are justified (cf. Rom. 3:24, 28; 5:1, 9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). It seems to me that any marian view has to exclude her as having anything to do with helping justify the human race.
2. "Mary was more instrumental than any other creature in thus 'co-merting' with Christ, and subordinate to him as only a creature can be subordinate to its Maker" (Ibid.). How does she co-merit with Christ? And if she does, what does this do for the Roman Catholic stance on the Monergism of Grace; that is, how can the integrity of the sole working of God for our salvation be maintained if someone other than Christ alone is responsible for imputing merit to those who believe?
I think that's all I have to ask about that subject. Other than that, I'm a big fan of Mary, to put it crassly. I certainly think she has a unique place in history, and in heaven. But so far, I don't see her as being in any way more than the Mother of God; a special, exalted privilege, to be sure, but not one that puts her in the position of being a co-meritor with Christ.
I'll stop now, and let you answer my questions. Thank you for taking the time, and I look forward to reading your response; I trust it will be clear, and well-thought out, as they usually are.
God bless you,
Christopher J. Freeman
Gregory said...
Hey Wow! A Debate! On my blog! That would be fun, if I wasn't up against your superior intellect! LOL
Hmm, where to begin...
1. First thing to note would be that Catholicism has always denied Justification by Faith alone. Justification is always by Grace Alone, from God's end, but by the faith and works lived as a response to the Grace of God, as St. James tells us.
In Romans 3:24-28, the Works of the Law are those works of the Mosaic Law that were thought to give justification in and of themselves. The point of the book of Romans (and Galatians) is to demonstrate that works of the Law, in and of themselves, cannot justify, but rather, the Law demonstrates our inability to be justified by "following the rules". Only God's Grace can give us even the ability to do works befitting of any merit. But Romans 3:24ff doesn't state faith alone. It does, however, deny works alone. As St. Paul himself says in verse 31, "Are we then annulling the law by faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law."
Romans 5:1-9 again asserts that our justification comes by Grace through faith, but not faith alone necessarily.
Galatians 2:16 again, I would say, is referring to a "works alone" theology, as with Galatians 3:11. Paul is writing against the Judaizers, who, it seems, wanted to deny the efficacy of Christ's atonement somehow. Almost a Pre-Pelagianism. I read a good paper by a Reformed theologian on that passage in Galatians. It's here: http://www.societaschristiana.com/Theology/RCJudaizers.html
Another thing to point out is that "co" as applied to Mary doesn't refer to an equal standing in the justification process, but to a subordinate standing, similar to the sense of "Co-pilot" as opposed to something like "co-producer".
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (as opposed to Hardon's Catechism -- though he's a good guy!) talks about Mary's mediation in paragraphs 967-970.
"By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to His Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a 'preeminent and...wholly unique member of the Church'; indeed, she is the 'exemplary realization' (typus) [Lumen Gentium 53;63.] of the Church.
"Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. 'In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.' [LG 61.]
"'This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.' [LG 62.]
"'Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men...flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.' [LG 60.] 'No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by His ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.' [LG 62.]"
(I hope that helps, because it sure took a long time to type! LOL)
It also might help to know that in Catholic Soteriology, Justification and Sanctification are synonymous. Rather than a foreign, imputed righteousness, our justification is an actual, infused righteousness, that continues to develop until such a time when we attain the Beatific Vision as Saints of God. In the meantime, the prayers of the Saints aid us in growing in sanctification as we continue to strive after that prize. Their merits, flowing solely from that superabundance of Christ's merits described above, aid us on our way. Mary, whom God preserved from actual sin through her immaculate conception, solely based on Jesus' merits (though, speaking phenominologically, in a pre-emptive way) is most able to intercede on our behalf. She is also, as described in the original post that these comments spring from, the "New Eve", the Mother of all the Living.
That's all for now. I'll get to #2 later this evening. I'm going home :)
God bless!
Gregory said...
I was going to go on to Part 2, but it seems I mostly covered that in Part 1.
I guess in the most tangible sense, Mary was more instrumental than any other creature in the sense that it was through her obedience that she brought Jesus into the world in the first place, as well as living her life in total obedience, right up to and beyond, willingly offering her part in the Sacrifice of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that her suffering in this regard was somehow efficacious. As St. Irenaeus says, "Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."
As for the Monergistic economy of Grace, all grace comes first and ultimately from God, through Jesus' atoning work on the Cross. However, God delights in involving us in the process. When I was talking to Jake above, I compared it to the Liturgy of Light at the Easter Vigil, where the Easter Candle lights all the other candles, but that doesn't preclude the reality that my candle was lit in an immediate sense by the candle of the person sitting behind me. Ultimately the flame came from the Easter Candle, representing Christ. But He involves us in the bestowal of His grace, both into our own lives, and also into the lives of others.
The Catechism says in paragraph 2011:
The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
>After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy You in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for Your love alone....In the evening of this life, I shall appear before You with empty hands, for I do not ask You, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in Your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in Your own justice and to receive from Your love the eternal possession of Yourself. [St. Thér?se of Lisieux, "Act of Offering" in Story of a Soul, tr. John Clarke (Washington DC: ICS, 1981), 277.]
In no person is this more true than in Mary, whom Gabriel addressed--as if it were her own name--as "Full of Grace." God's life of Grace had so completely been given to Mary that she was literally full to overflowing.
But the idea that Mary imputes merit to us is, I think, mistaken. I'm not sure if that's what Fr. John Hardon had in mind when he used the term "co-merit". However, to tie Mary into St. Paul's analogy of the Body, Jesus is the head, and Mary is the neck, according to various Church Fathers. As I wrote in the original Mary post, her role in the Church is solely to bring us to Jesus, and everything she is has its source in Jesus, and everything she does has its end in Jesus--as illustrated in the story of the Wedding at Cana, where she tells the servants to "Do whatever He tells you."
I hope that answers your questions, Chris. If not, I'd love to pursue the dialogue.
God bless!
I hope that helps, Slave. God bless!
Hi Gregory,
I think a proper explanation depends, first of all, on a clear and vital distinction between a mediator and an intercessor. Just so we’re all on the same page, a mediator is someone who stands between two other parties and represents them to each other, because those two parties are not in direct contact with each other in some matters. An intercessor, on the other hand, does not come in between us and God. He comes along side of us and joins in our petition, and rejoices along with us in God’s reply.
I took another look at Hebrews 12:1, and the vision of the martyrs, and the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and especially at the knowledge of earthly events they seemed to have after passing into the next world. Gregory, it honestly seems to me that the only knowledge they had is the knowledge they brought with them when they died (in other words, the things they knew while they were still alive). I suppose it’s possible that when someone else, whom they knew in life, died and joined them, this person could bring along an ‘update’ into the next world, but that is the only method I see in which they would have any knowledge of earthly events.
FYI, on the Hebrews 12 passage with the cloud of witnesses, they were witnesses to us in the sense of their example, which we read about in Chapter 11; just like the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South would rise in the judgment because of their examples (Matt 12:41,42). But as you pointed out, we are still to look to Christ Himself (v 2).
The passage from Revelation is one that has always interested me, but in it the departed saints are not making intercession for anyone. Quite the opposite, the are praying for vengeance on them. And in Chapter 8, God is doing just that.
Here’s the main point of concern. Jesus makes intercession for us because He ever lives (Heb 7:25). But addressing the dead in prayer is called necromancy, and God strictly forbids it:
"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee."
(Deut 18:10-12)
Samuel, for instance, was a part of the great cloud of witnesses we mentioned (Heb 11:32). Yet when King Saul tried talking to him after his death, he was condemned for it (1 Chr 10:13).
Now, in saying some of the things you have, you’ve touched on a thought that is very dear to me. I fully agree that the departed saints are still a part of the body of Christ, and they still have a relationship with God. I can see, for example, how a departed husband might implore the Lord for the sake of his widow and children. I don’t see anything in Scripture that forbids them to pray for us. It’s when we pray to them, or through them that the problems arise.
Later in your comment (above), you began to slur the distinction between an intercessor and a mediator. I wish you had kept it clearer, because that made it sound like a bait-and-switch approach, which I’m sure was not your intention. Of course, I invite you to clarify but here’s what it amounts to on the face of it, the way it reads now:
”This does not detract from Christ's mediation because their mediation is only subordinate to His. In fact, any mediation on the part of anyone other than Christ is only a result of His primary mediation.
So what you’re actually portraying is two or more levels of mediators. But the Bible is quite clear about that: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)
Remember the definition of a mediator we started with. He stands between two parties that have no contact with each other. Christ is both a mediator and an intercessor, because there are some ways we can come directly to the Father, and some we can’t. But there is never a way in which we can’t come directly to Jesus. Even a newborn babe in Christ may do so (1 Pet 2:2-4).
When Catholics pray to Mary, who prays to Jesus, who prays to the father, Mary becomes an actual second mediator. It doesn’t matter if she’s considered subordinate or not, since we’re talking about the links of a chain. If one link is missing, the chain is broken. So if Catholics really view her (or the saints, or anyone else) in that sort of light, they are talking about co-mediators, and they are drawing a curtain between themselves and the Lord. It also infringes His honor. He becomes less, that they may be viewed as more. Sorry, but there's no way around that conclusion.
Here’s a thought. When Jesus was dying on the cross, the penitent thief went directly to Him for mercy over his mortal sins, and he received forgiveness very readily, with great love, comfort and relief (Luke 23:41-44). At that same time, we know that Mary was present, standing at the very foot of the cross (John 19:25). Why did the thief not pray to Mary, and ask her to ask Jesus? Or why did Jesus not rebuff him, and tell him that in order to make his request, he had to go through her? It’s because Jesus, not Mary, is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). Jesus is the one who was called a ‘friend of sinners.’ (Luke 7:34).
Like our friend David, I want to stress that I have the utmost respect for Mary. She was blessed among women, but not above them (Luke 1:28). She also gave the best advice in the whole Bible: “Whatever He says to you, do it!” (John 2:5). So we should all make this our aim, as we abide in Him.
Right on Loren!
Gregory,
I don't believe that the whole co-pilot thing works. Pilot and co-pilot are equal, they are both fully capable of doing the job at hand (flying and landing the plane). If the pilot were to die, the co-pilot is fully capable of taking the reigns and flying/landing the plane.
However, Jesus Christ as Loren pointed out is the only capable mediator and intersessor for us. Who can appear before God, who can stand in His Holy pressence? Only one who is without sin! Jesus Christ is the only one who has never committed a sin. There is none other that is qualified.
David
(I really wish I had the same mouse at home that I have at work, with that little spinny wheel for scrolling down! It's so much easier to read and reply there! LOL)
I'm not really sure that there is the distinction that you wish there to be between the concepts of intercessor and mediator.
in·ter·ces·sion, n.
1. Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another.
2. Mediation in a dispute.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin intercessi, intercessin-, intervention, from intercessus, past participle of intercdere, to intervene. See intercede.]
-----------------------------------
me·di·a·tion, n.
1. The act of mediating; intervention.
2. The state of being mediated.
3. Law. An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.
According to the thesaurus, intercession and mediation are synonyms.
I prefer to think of your "chain" as more of a "web". You seemed to miss entirely the point that the intercession of Mary and the Saints is a "both/and" scenario with Christ, and not a step-ladder to Christ. Think of it this way: There are times in my life when I'm weighed down by sin, and honestly do not feel worthy enough to go to Christ. Objectively, head-knowledgeably, I know that I can always go to Him and that He always loves me, but in my heart I feel distant. It is here, in this place, that I am most likely to find an intercessor to pray for me--and who is more logical an intercessor than Christ's own Mother, who desires nothing else than for us to be reconciled with and enjoying intimate relationship with her Son?
Or think of it this way, many times situations in our lives come up, and we don't know how to pray about them. In those situations, we ourselves fumble through prayer as the Spirit helps in our weakness (Romans 8:26-27), but at the same time, we can and do ask others to lift us up in prayer as well--especially others who have been in that circumstance before and can better know how to pray and to advise. Again, who better than the saints, who have gone through it all, to pray for us in these times?
It is not a necessary thing, but it is a fitting thing.
As for what the saints in heaven know or are aware of here on earth, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not really indicate either way how much either party knew about the goings on down here. Furthermore, I don't believe Hebrews 12:1 necessarily closes the case that the witness of the saints is just what they left behind and not what they presently observe. Consider that Moses and Elijah both spoke face to face with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They were present enough to be seen and heard by Peter, James and John, and were alive enough to be talking to Jesus (Matt 17:1-8).
Now, either Jesus Himself is guilty of necromancy, or necromancy is something different than you describe.
Ultimately, it comes down to Jesus' reply to the Sadducees (which I meant to quote above, but forgot. Thanks for the renewed opportunity): "Have you never read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him and said: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is God, not of the dead, but of the living. You are very much mistaken" (Mark 12:26b-27).
Does the further bestowal and use of Christ's grace really make Him less? I do not see this as so, but rather, if it is possible, it makes Him more! The fact that we as fallen, frail humanity can be considered a part of God's saving work is truly incredible! But we have a part! When we spread the Gospel to those who have never heard, we are enacting our role in the Universal Priesthood by mediating the Covenant to the world! Christ is the only mediator, in that He is the only one who, in and of Himself can bring us to God. But He Himself invites us to play that secondary role of reaching out to others to bring them to Him. Christ could personally go to every person in the world, tell them that salvation is theirs if they will follow Him, save them, bring them to the Father, all without ever including His Church in the scenario. But He doesn't. He chooses to use us. Our mediation, though, is not in and of ourselves, but only in and through Jesus Christ. Christ shows His greater glory by raising up people who formerly could do nothing (John 15) and making them, through Him, able to actively participate in His Saving Purpose!
(Mary was called blessed among women in Luke 1:42, not 1:28. My understanding of that blessing is similar to what is found in the New Jerusalem Bible--not that Mary is "just as" blessed as other women, but, "She gave a loud cry and said, 'Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'" And this, it seems to me, is the correct understanding. After all, who could possibly be considered more blessed than the woman who was chosen to bring Christ into the world? As the Gaither song has it, "Mary was the first one to carry the Gospel!")
As for the John 2:5 passage, this is bar none my favourite Marian passage, because it sums up Catholic teaching succinctly. "Do whatever He tells you." Amen! That is her continuing instruction to all of us throughout the ages. It has been her unwavering slogan every time she has appeared in an apparition. The fruit of these apparitions, whether you believe them or not (and I speak only of the ones recognised by the Church, not ones like the grease stain under the Michigan bridge :p) has been a greater and more fervent devotion to Christ.
I think that's enough for now. I'm off to paint my new apartment!
God bless!
Dave, as I understand "co-pilot", whether he is fully qualified or not, he is the subordinate pilot on the flight. Often, he is still in training, and thus is not completely qualified. Either way, the prefix "co-" does not imply equality of status or ability. It simply means that the "co-" whatever is joined to the original whatever.
Hip Shot-
Does that mean a co-worker is subordinate? or a co-laborer?
If Mary already HAS the position of "co" why is there a 'movement' to name "Mary as the mediatrix of all graces and coredemptrix"...Again, I question 'mediatrix of all graces' Not "co-mediatrix" and 'of all graces'.
Hip Shot 2
When Christ appeared w/ Moses & Elijah: Luke 9:29,Matt. 17:2, Mk 9:2, In ALL three accounts - Christ was transfigured -He was in His Heavenly Presence not His earthy Presence...An important distinction.
Stirring up trouble, I can feel it.
While Paul in all of his epistles asks us to pray for him and for each other, I can find no place, where he asks us to pray for or to someone dead. He, as he was dying (2 Timothy 4:6-17) did not ask for prayers. In fact, he does not ask for any prayers for himself in the entire book. Paul tells Timothy he is praying for him, but does not ask for any.
Revelation is an interesting book. Comments may stir up controversies in and of themselves…However, there is no mention of ‘The Church’ after Chapter 4. Revelation 6:9 is the beginning of the ‘Cry of the Martyrs’ - those that die during the Tribulation having been saved after ‘The Church’ is removed. Further, they are lamenting to God about the injustice done THEM, (vs. 10, “sit in judgment and avenge our blood”). Then they are told to rest (vs. “be patient a little while longer until the number was filled of their fellow servants and brothers who were going to be killed as they had been.”). These Martyrs are the subject of a ‘special’ resurrection, Revelation 20:4.
Notice specifically: - These martyrs are in a place of waiting. Their cry is not for help, or intercession. Their entreaty is for JUDGEMENT. They do not ask for any cause except their own. And they are told to ‘rest’ or be patient. They are believers, but they are not in the presence of God.
Hi Gregory,
Looks like you're gettng swamped here! I'm pretty swamped too. I just have time to make a quick observation:
The Greek word 'Mediator' is 'mesites' which literally means to go between. The word for 'intercession' is 'entugchano' which means to confer with.
I looked up 'mediator' in Vine's and he says the mediator in view "must possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other."
I know these things are true of Christ as a mediator, but I'm not sure if he's saying that that's coming from the meaning of the Greek word, or not.
25 comments! (26 with this one) That's amazing!
Unfortunately, today I've got a big outing tonight to see the Jays play the Tigers with the Youth Group, so I don't have much time to answer your questions. Tomorrow is looking pretty clear, though.
And they are really good questions. I remember asking them myself.
I'll briefly answer a few of the tangential questions, like Slave's first hipshot.
(By the way, to avoid confusion, "Unchained Slave" and "Mark 1:17" are both named "Dave". If I refer to anyone as "Dave", it'll be Mark 1:17, and "Slave" is Unchained Slave.)
"Co-Worker" does not necessarily imply equality. When I worked in a factory for all of last year, I was a quality control inspector (and got paid more) while many of my co-workers were "merely" assembly people. I had the better (arguably more important) job, but I wasn't a manager as such. They were my co-workers. Even had I been a manager, they would still have been my co-workers, as we worked together to complete our tasks.
On the other hand, the Bible uses the phrase "Co-Heirs" (Romans 8:17) in describing our relationship with Christ. Surely that "co" must be in a sense that implies togetherness but not equality--otherwise we would inherit exactly what Jesus inherits: a name above all other names, all power and authority, sitting at the right hand of the Father...
Actually, if you want to make that argument, Mary could rightfully be called mediatrix--as could any other Christian woman out there (men, obviously, would be mediators!). LOL But I guess that's why it was a "hip shot". I'm not saying "co" never means equal status between the two parties. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily mean that, and there are definite cases where it does not--like Romans 8:17.
As for movements, there are "movements" to ordain women priests, "movements" that say the Church has had no (valid) Pope since Pius XII, "movements" towards the liberalisation of Christianity. The fact that there is such a "movement" does not mean that there is a valid point behind it. Notice that The Church has not made the declaration to name Mary "mediatrix of all graces."
But if she were, it would be with the definitive understanding that she is only in such a role because it was through her cooperation (another co word that doesn't imply equality) with God that brought Christ into the world in order to save it. Without Mary, things would not happen. God chose her to bring this about, and in that sense, and in the sense of her faithfulness throughout her life, and the fact that she does actively plead to bring men to Jesus (John 2:5) and is the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27; Rev. 12:17), she subordinately brings the grace of God to His people. She in no way originates those graces, however. And that distinction is the key.
A man who brings the Host to an infirm person because they cannot attend Mass bestows grace upon that person, because in the Eucharist Christ is Present and gives us His Grace. But the man who brought the Eucharist did not originate it or endow it with it's grace-giving properties.
Hip shot 2: When Christ was transfigured, He was still present on earth (the apostles all saw Him, and Moses and Elijah), so either they were transported to Heaven with Jesus, or He was still on earth with them. Therefore, I would say that saying He was in His "heavenly presence" is a bit of a misstatement.
Either way, however, I fail to see how it is an argument for or against the intercession of the saints. The Transfiguration was brought up in support of the fact that those who have gone before are in fact still alive, and aware.
Besides, the early church fathers taught, and we still believe today, that in the Mass, we are mystically transported and present before the Altar and Throne of Heaven. Going to Church takes us out of space/time for roughly an hour, as we celebrate the mystery of Christ's salvation for us! That's why, right before the Host is consecrated, we sing the Sanctus, preceded by these words by the priest: "Let us join with all the choirs of heaven as we sing:" or "Let us join with all the saints and angels as we give glory to God:"
Holy Holy Holy Lord
God of power and might
Heaven and earth are full of Your glory
Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Hosanna in the highest
Hosanna in the highest!
I'll answer all the other comments tomorrow.
Randy, if you're still around, any input would be most appreciated!
God bless! And thanks for such a wonderful and stimulating discussion!
Gregory,
"Without Mary, things would not happen. God chose her to bring this about, and in that sense, and in the sense of her faithfulness throughout her life, and the fact that she does actively plead to bring men to Jesus (John 2:5) and is the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27; Rev. 12:17), she subordinately brings the grace of God to His people. She in no way originates those graces, however. And that distinction is the key."
???
If Mary had refused God, this would not have limited God in any way! It is the fact that she saw God working around her and chose to enter into God's work (work already started). Yes, she was the mother of Jesus. But, setting her above any other human is not right. She was 100% human, nothing more and nothing less. Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Mary was human, that means that she was sinful.
Titus 1:2 "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" Some translations say "who cannot lie"
If we say that Mary had no sin, we are making God out to be a lier, for through Paul he told us that all have sinned! This does not exclude anyone.
If you say that God imparted Grace upon Mary and took away her sin, you would be correct, However, for anyone who is Christ He has done the very same thing.
We are Human, as well as and just like Mary was Human! She is just like us. The only thing that makes her special in a way, is that she gave birth to Jesus.
The only One who should ever be put on a pedistal is the One who is all deserving of it, Jesus Christ! To put anyone in a higher postition than another is to take away from Christ.
No Human has a higher position than another, for we are all sinners and deserving of eternal punishment.
Christians and Non-Christian are even on the same level. The only difference is that Christ has come to us, and revealed His saving Grace to us. Again no human has any other status than that of being human/sinful.
We could look at it in a different way also.
Why exult Mary over Paul? King David? Isaiah? Moses? Abraham? They were all men and women of God and the only thing that sets them apart is that they believed God and they followed Him. No human can be set above another for we are all the created all fallen creatures. Only Jesus Christ can be exulted, for Only He is the Creator/sinless.
He is the Alpha and Omega and He has left His signature in the Bible. Check out this site: http://cyberanger.blogspot.com/2005/08/aleph-tav-jesus-signature-in-bible.html
Christ and only Christ should be exulted. We can point the way to Christ, but that does not put us in a position over anyone else.
Sorry if that sounds forcefull, but this is something that I am very passionate about. Jesus Christ is the only one to ever be lifted up.
David
Hmm, read a little... Got bored.. Scrolled down.. Decided to make my own comment..
Uhh, it's probably a simple answer, even from someone who doesn't know a lot about the Catholic faith:
1)What exactly is the difference between Catholics and Protestants, relating the Mary, adn why is this difference important? (I don't read up much)
2)In you're own opinion, without worrying about feelings, do Protestants have the same right into heaven as Catholics, ie: Should I be worried that I'm not Catholic? (Make sure to include a solid 'yes-no' answer, I'm not into reading everything you write and trying to find your underlying ideas.)
That's about all I wanna know.
~Dave~
NOTE TO ALL:
I'm not going to read anyone's response other than Greg's.. So, don't bother trying to answer, I don't like reading a lot of comments.
Thanks.
~Dave~
Gregory,
Since you have so much time today, can I 'squeeze' one more question in?
When the Catholic Church issues and edict or declaration and ends it with, "LET HIM BE ANATHEMA". What does that mean? Specifically?
Thank you,
In God's Grace
Okay, new forms of address (since there are now 3 "Dave"s posting here.
"Dave" is Dave
"Mark 1:17" is David
"Unchained Slave" is Slave
I'm going to answer Dave's questions first.
Uhh, it's probably a simple answer, even from someone who doesn't know a lot about the Catholic faith:
1)What exactly is the difference between Catholics and Protestants, relating the Mary, adn why is this difference important? (I don't read up much)
Actually, it's not really that simple. Basically, Catholics believe that the people who have died before us and are in heaven, are still aware of and attentive to the Christians here on earth, and as such, they pray for us. The ones we know for sure are in Heaven are referred to as Saints.
In the Catholic Church, we believe we can pray to the saints, asking them to pray for us, just like I would ask you to pray for me.
Mary, because she is Jesus' Mother, has a special place of honour in Heaven, just like Solomon's Mother, Bath-Sheba, had a special place of honour in his Kingdom (1 Kings 2:13-25, especially verses 17 and 20--of course, it didn't turn out so well for Adonijah...)
There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
1. That she was conceived "immaculately", meaning that at the moment of Conception, the Holy Spirit kept her from inheriting the stain of original sin, like the rest of us do. Through this pre-emptively saving action of the Holy Spirit, Mary was able to live a perfectly holy and sinless life.
2. That she was a virgin throughout her entire life (ie, not just up until she gave birth to Christ, but for all of her life).
3. That she is the Mother of God, which we discussed above meant not that she somehow originated God, but that the baby to whom she gave birth was fully God and fully Man in her womb.
4. That at the time of her death, she was taken up to heaven (assumed) bodily, like Enoch and Elijah (and Moses, according to some Jewish traditions).
The differences are important because on the one hand, Catholics believe these things not just to give honour to Mary, but more importantly to reflect and safeguard their beliefs about Christ, as the Catechism says (#487): "What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ."
If we look at that in the context of the 4 beliefs above, we see how they reflect belief in Christ in the following ways (numbers corelating to doctrines):
1. The immaculate conception is seen as fitting for the one chosen to bear Christ. On the one hand, it show's Christ's saving power in Mary's life even before His incarnation. Further, it demonstrates the absolute power of God's saving plan. Finally, because Mary is the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant, it was proper that she would be consecrated like it was (yeah, anyone who is interested, we can go into that later).
2. Her perpetual virginity reinforces the belief in and emphasises the importance of Jesus' birth from a virgin. It is one of the key beliefs surrounding Christ's Godhood. It was prophesied by Isaiah, and fulfilled at that first Christmas. That she remains a virgin safeguards any claim of doubt, saying, "how can we prove she was a virgin before His birth, if she wasn't after His birth?" It eliminates all doubt. Further, it was the historic belief of the Church, and even the Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin believed in it undisputedly (in fact, Luther lashed out strongly against other Protestants who denied it!).
3. The belief that Mary is the Mother of God was originally defined to guard against the heresies that said that Mary only gave birth to a man, whom God later adopted, or bestowed His divinity on. The heresy denies that Jesus existed before He was born of Mary. Thus, the early Church called her Mother of God to contend that while Jesus was in her womb, He was in fact God Himself.
4. Mary's assumption completes the idea of her immaculate conception. Since death is the consequence of sin, Mary's sinlessness preserves her from the need for death and corruption. It also reflects on Jesus' obedience to the Law (especially the 10 Commandments) as He fully honoured His Mother (Mary) and Father (God).
The assumption also was God's way of preventing early Christians from making a shrine or altar out of her grave. The temptation to do this could have been overwhelming. In fact, there are two cities today (Ephesus is one, I forget the other) who claim to be the city she was buried in, and will show you the empty tomb!
On the other hand, the differences are important to Protestants because they believe that the honour that we show to Mary takes away from, rather than adds to, the honour we show to Christ, and is thus a form of idolatry.
I'm sorry that was such a long answer, but as I said, it really isn't that simple. As David mentions above, to Protestants, Mary is no more important than any other human being, and her refusal to obey God would not have mattered a whit in the long run. Catholics strongly disagree.
2)In you're own opinion, without worrying about feelings, do Protestants have the same right into heaven as Catholics, ie: Should I be worried that I'm not Catholic? (Make sure to include a solid 'yes-no' answer, I'm not into reading everything you write and trying to find your underlying ideas.)
According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, because Protestants teach and proclaim Christ, and practise valid baptisms (ie, with water, and in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), they have as much right to be called Christians as we do, and are just as able to be saved as we are.
However, as Pope Benedict has said, the Protestant faiths are "deficient" or "incomplete", mainly because they deny the full life of grace that Christ has for us in His sacraments.
So, Yes, you have the same right to heaven as Catholics, so long as you have been baptised and maintain your faith in Christ by living for Him. But you are missing out on so much that He has to offer you right here and now, before Heaven comes. After all, the Christian faith isn't all about going to heaven when we die, but about knowing Jesus and enjoying Him here and now, in the fullest way that we can.
As a Catholic who has begun to experience the fulness of the life of Grace that Christ has to offer, I would seriously encourage you to investigate Catholicism for yourself. But I don't believe for one minute that you are in any danger of Hell if you don't.
I promise I'll get to the rest of the questions tonight--or, at the very least, I will have an answer to Mark 1:17 David's post above (which, in effect, sums up everything that has been said so far) and Slave's question about Anathemas.
It is a sin to get drunk. The Bible condemns that repeatedly. However, as stories like Jesus turning water into wine show us, drinking itself is not wrong.
The sin is in the excess. We need to be drinking in moderation--knowing our limit and not exceeding it. When we get drunk, our inhibitions are diminished, and we can find ourselves doing all sorts of things that we would normally never do--and usually these things are not good.
When we are drunk, we're not fully aware of what's going on. It's the opposite of the self-control that comes from the Spirit of God (1 Timothy 1:7).
I don't know about the "even a slight buzz" part. Not actually being a drinker myself, I'm not sure what you would call "a slight buzz". But if you've lost control, even if you don't think you have (and one never does), you have crossed the line.
Gregory,
You said above; "There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
1. That she was conceived "immaculately", meaning that at the moment of Conception, the Holy Spirit kept her from inheriting the stain of original sin, like the rest of us do. Through this pre-emptively saving action of the Holy Spirit, Mary was able to live a perfectly holy and sinless life.
2. That she was a virgin throughout her entire life (ie, not just up until she gave birth to Christ, but for all of her life).
3. That she is the Mother of God, which we discussed above meant not that she somehow originated God, but that the baby to whom she gave birth was fully God and fully Man in her womb.
4. That at the time of her death, she was taken up to heaven (assumed) bodily, like Enoch and Elijah (and Moses, according to some Jewish traditions)."
Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
1. If Mary was without sin, she would be the exact same as Christ!
Christ was the only sinless person to walk this earth!
John 8:7 & Hebrews 4:14-16
Non-other than Christ, there is no place in the Bible that would state otherwise.
2. If Mary was a virgin her entire life, where did James the Brother of Jesus come from, the guy who wrote the Book of James? He is not just some half brother, He was born of Mary! More than that, check out Matthew 12:46, Jesus had more than James for a brother!
4. Where has this come from? This is not in the Bible anywhere.
Again, Jesus Christ is the only Sinless person to walk this earth. If there was another, there would be no need for Christ!
This is nothing but the false teaching of a man. This does not come from the inspired written word of God!
By saying that Mary was sinless, Christ's Power is weakened.
Again I am sorry if this is forceful, but the Bible clearly Points to and States that Jesus Christ was and is the only Sinless One! Non-other than Jesus Christ!
David
Hahaha Matt. 'Cause I'm not busy enough...
I'm gonna go with the guy who brought the myrrh, because it's a burial spice, and in a sense prophesied Jesus' crucifixion--which is what saves us from our sins.
David, I'm gonna get to that when I answered your other post above. It should be up tonight. Right now, I'm going to try to answer the anathema question (because in theory it's a short answer...they never are...lol), then leaving work.
My reply will be tonight. I admire your zeal, and it doesn't offend me. I respect it. I hope and pray, though, that your zeal is coupled with a sincere search for truth and an openness to new answers and ideas (not, however, that you would blindly accept them, but that you would entertain them without a priori judging them to be a "vain teaching of men".
For my part, I'll attempt to demonstrate that it is, in fact, alluded to in Scripture, and not contradictory to it.
God bless!
40 comments! Wow! I wonder if there's a limit?
Okay, Slave, regarding the Anathema question, it means basically the same thing as my explanation of excommunication. But for handy reference, here's a paper I found, written by Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong (yup, yet another Dave...what is it with that name?):
The Catholic Understanding of the Anathemas of Trent and Excommunication
I hope that helps.
Now, I'm going home, with my Bible and my Catechism, and tonight, sometime, I am going to post a thorough reply to Mark 1:17's questions.
God bless!
Dave is such a wonderful name! Everyone should be named Dave!!!
But, then where would the divercity (Good CD By Toby Mac) be?
David
Hi, you do not know me at all. But I was just browsing around on blogger and I found yours. I was raised Catholic, but recently I have drifted from my faith. I would just like to have your opinion on a few questions that I have, since you are more in touch with Catechism than I am.
-What do you think of premarital copulation (hmmm, i don't want to write the "s" word) Do you believe as many Catholics do that is something that is sacred and should be saved until you are married, so two people can become "one flesh"?
-Do you believe that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life?
-Do you know the origin of the sign of the cross and why we do it? I know each religion has a custom or a signal they do, but we make a signal on ourselves that was a signal of fear and death in the Roman times. It wasn't until the ressurection of Jesus until the cross was glorified.
- Do you think the people who are worship God on a regular basis are the only ones who will go to heaven.How about a charitable, good, kind person who does not worship God but is always kind to others. Do you think it is possible for a person like that to go to heaven?
-Do you believe that Christians have the right way of worshipping God? How about the Jews, or Muslims?
Ok, I think that's enough...
Chantelle
Hi Gregory,
You have so much on your plate already that I feel terrible for adding more. Totally no rush on this! Others have been waiting longer!
Anyway, I have some more questions about Mary. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Catholic doctrine means (basically) that a sinful nature was 'filtered out' of Mary, but does not deny she was born in the same way as the rest of us?
Second: If Mary was always pure, why did she have to give an offering for her uncleanness after the birth of Jesus?
Third: At one point even Mary thought that Jesus was out of His mind, and went to apprehend Him (Mark 3:21,31). The Bible teaches that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) Soooo . . . ?
Fourth. As has already been pointed out, Mary went on to have other children after Jesus. These were not merely cousins of something of that sort, but she herself was their mother. This was foretold in Psalm 69:8/John 19:26,27.
I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother's children
(Ps 69:8)
So, just how important are those beliefs to Catholicism? (If it's really founded square on Jesus, it shouldn't matter.)
All due respect to Mary, of course.
Mark 1:17 (David),
Hip-Shot:
The 'Epistle' [Letter of James][Between Hebrews & 1 Peter] is commonly accepted as written by James the brother of Jesus.
The 'Book of James'(Gospel of James) is variously attributed to the Apostle James, and brother of Jesus - It deals with the 'infancy' of Christ - and is the 'source' of many 'Marian Devotions'. It is not included in either the Catholic Canon (having been ruled apocryphal) or the 'Protestant' Bible...It has been included in some versions of 'Eastern Orthodox' and 'Essene' canons.
(google search: ["Gospel of James" +bible] (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html)
Unchained Slave, 'Slave', one of the other Davids...It is a GOOD Name.
'Slave'
FYI
When I talk about the James the Brother of Christ and the Book of James, not being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox I mean the book between Hebrews and 1 Peter.
I do not give any of the apocryphal books any sway, they are not part of the Bible.
If I refer to a book in the manor that I did above it will always mean one of the 66 books of the Bible. However, if I do refer to another book, it will be from a trusted author who is talking about God's Holy Word.
Sorry for the confusion, Hope this clears things up.
Wow! It just doesn't end! LOL
Chantelle, welcome to Grace for the Wayward Heart! I hope you visit more often! And I hope I can help in my on small way, to nurture and strengthen your Catholic faith!
To answer your questions:
-What do you think of premarital copulation (hmmm, i don't want to write the "s" word) Do you believe as many Catholics do that is something that is sacred and should be saved until you are married, so two people can become "one flesh"?
I believe you already have an idea of what I will say, but I'll say it anyway. Sex (yeah, I'll use the "s" word--I'm not one to sugar-coat) is a great and wonderful good that God has given to us--but like many good things, it has a rightful place and time. Like the alcohol question above by Matt!!!!!, sex outside of its proper context is a sin. Specifically, sex outside of the confines of marriage is a sin. This is because sex is a gift given to us by God for two distinct but equally important reasons (I sound like the voice at the beginning of Law & Order). The two purposes of sex are unitive (bringing a couple closer together--the "one flesh" idea that you mention) and procreative (having children, raising a family). Outside of the committed, lifelong relationship that marriage is, both the unitive and procreative purposes of sex lose their meaning. In a dating relationship, where you can conceivably walk away at any time, the unity of becoming one flesh means nothing. And, if that relationship does break up, the break-up is even more painful (using the "one flesh" notion, it's like ripping an arm off, or worse).
On the other hand, the procreative purpose should be self-evident as to why marriage is the proper place for this--as the single parenthood of our culture, and the problems that arise from it, indicates.
On a secondary note, most couples who have sex outside of marriage use "protection" to prevent "unwanted consequences" such as STD's or pregnancy. Since the Church is 100% against artificial contraceptives, it is a compounded sin to have sex outside of marriage, and to use "protection".
To be "pastoral" for a second, though, if you have sinned in this way, know that there is forgiveness, and that God does love you. I would urge you to talk to your priest, to go to Confession. Yeah, it's rather humbling--but that's part of the point. Another part is getting guidance for how to stay away from sinful behaviours.
Of course, if your question was purely academic, then no offence was intended.
I hope that helped. If you have any other questions related to that, feel free to ask :)
-Do you believe that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life?
I believe as the Church does on this issue that yes, Mary was a virgin for her entire life. I'll be discussing that in greater detail coming up, since most of the Q's on this Q&A have revolved around Our Lady. So I urge you to stay tuned!
-Do you know the origin of the sign of the cross and why we do it? I know each religion has a custom or a signal they do, but we make a signal on ourselves that was a signal of fear and death in the Roman times. It wasn't until the ressurection of Jesus until the cross was glorified.
To turn around your last sentence, John's Gospel makes it clear that it wasn't until the Cross that Jesus was fully glorified: "'And when I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all people to Myself.' By these words He indicated the kind of death he would die" (John 12:32-33).
The Cross (or the Crucifix) has been the centre symbol of our faith, because the Crucifixion of Christ is the act by which He paid for the forgiveness of our sins. It was through this horrible, torturous execution that all people could find life, peace, and freedom in His Name. That is why, when we pray, we make the sign of the Cross. We remind ourselves of the price He paid for us, and we dedicate ourselves to Him "In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
The actual practice of it started rather early on. The early Christian writer, Tertullian (born around AD 160), bore witness to the tradition, saying that wherever one travelled, people would trace the sign of the cross on their foreheads. Over time, the prayer expanded to become what we commonly do today, touching our foreheads, our hearts, and then left shoulder to right shoulder.
- Do you think the people who are worship God on a regular basis are the only ones who will go to heaven[?] How about a charitable, good, kind person who does not worship God but is always kind to others. Do you think it is possible for a person like that to go to heaven?
I'll treat this and the next question together, since they overlap.
-Do you believe that Christians have the right way of worshipping God? How about the Jews, or Muslims?
I believe that in the revelation of Jesus Christ, coming as a Man, teaching us of God, and dying to save us from our sins and finally rising again, we have the clearest and best knowledge of God, and who He is (after all, Jesus was God Himself come to teach us all that, and make it possible). As such, any religion or faith that denies that Jesus is the Son of God, is automatically denying the very source of the spiritual life that He came to give. Jesus Himself said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)
St. Paul tells us at the beginning of Romans that all people everywhere have a basic knowledge of God written into their very being, in their consciences. If they never have opportunity to hear about Christ, and follow the dictates of their consciences all their lives, they may be saved. But even then, it is not a sure thing. God is Just, and He judges based on a person's faith, their works, and their knowledge of the truth. If someone knows the truth of the Gospel, and fails to live it out in their faith and their works, their knowledge won't save them. If a person rejects faith in Christ, having heard and understood the Gospel, but lives a life of good works, those works won't save him either. Same for someone who claims to have faith, but doesn't demonstrate that faith by his works.
In the end, only God and the person know their status with Him. We can discuss in generalities, but I couldn't say to you, you aren't saved or you are, or Loren, or Slave, or Mark 1:17, or Dave, or Matt!!!!!, or anyone else for that matter. God is judge, and we know that He judges fairly.
Thanks for your honest questions, and I hope you stop by regularly!
God bless you, Chantelle.
David and Slave, where'd this stuff about the Protoevangelium of James come from? I missed something, I think...
Okay, I think I saw where the whole Book of James thing was mentioned. Oy.
And for the record (and the risk of starting yet another discussion--preferrably after the Mary discussion has been laid to rest...) there are 73 books in the Bible.
I really dislike the fact that I keep postponing the answers about Mary. However, it's gotten incredibly late, and I've got to be up early tomorrow. For the record, though, I'm going to copy/paste the 4 comments that I will be addressing below in this comment, so that at least I'll have a handy reference point for answering them:
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
"Without Mary, things would not happen. God chose her to bring this about, and in that sense, and in the sense of her faithfulness throughout her life, and the fact that she does actively plead to bring men to Jesus (John 2:5) and is the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27; Rev. 12:17), she subordinately brings the grace of God to His people. She in no way originates those graces, however. And that distinction is the key."
???
If Mary had refused God, this would not have limited God in any way! It is the fact that she saw God working around her and chose to enter into God's work (work already started). Yes, she was the mother of Jesus. But, setting her above any other human is not right. She was 100% human, nothing more and nothing less. Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Mary was human, that means that she was sinful.
Titus 1:2 "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" Some translations say "who cannot lie"
If we say that Mary had no sin, we are making God out to be a lier, for through Paul he told us that all have sinned! This does not exclude anyone.
If you say that God imparted Grace upon Mary and took away her sin, you would be correct, However, for anyone who is Christ He has done the very same thing.
We are Human, as well as and just like Mary was Human! She is just like us. The only thing that makes her special in a way, is that she gave birth to Jesus.
The only One who should ever be put on a pedistal is the One who is all deserving of it, Jesus Christ! To put anyone in a higher postition than another is to take away from Christ.
No Human has a higher position than another, for we are all sinners and deserving of eternal punishment.
Christians and Non-Christian are even on the same level. The only difference is that Christ has come to us, and revealed His saving Grace to us. Again no human has any other status than that of being human/sinful.
We could look at it in a different way also.
Why exult Mary over Paul? King David? Isaiah? Moses? Abraham? They were all men and women of God and the only thing that sets them apart is that they believed God and they followed Him. No human can be set above another for we are all the created all fallen creatures. Only Jesus Christ can be exulted, for Only He is the Creator/sinless.
He is the Alpha and Omega and He has left His signature in the Bible. Check out this site: http://cyberanger.blogspot.com/2005/08/aleph-tav-jesus-signature-in-bible.html
Christ and only Christ should be exulted. We can point the way to Christ, but that does not put us in a position over anyone else.
Sorry if that sounds forcefull, but this is something that I am very passionate about. Jesus Christ is the only one to ever be lifted up.
David
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
You said above; "There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
1. That she was conceived "immaculately", meaning that at the moment of Conception, the Holy Spirit kept her from inheriting the stain of original sin, like the rest of us do. Through this pre-emptively saving action of the Holy Spirit, Mary was able to live a perfectly holy and sinless life.
2. That she was a virgin throughout her entire life (ie, not just up until she gave birth to Christ, but for all of her life).
3. That she is the Mother of God, which we discussed above meant not that she somehow originated God, but that the baby to whom she gave birth was fully God and fully Man in her womb.
4. That at the time of her death, she was taken up to heaven (assumed) bodily, like Enoch and Elijah (and Moses, according to some Jewish traditions)."
Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
1. If Mary was without sin, she would be the exact same as Christ!
Christ was the only sinless person to walk this earth!
John 8:7 & Hebrews 4:14-16
Non-other than Christ, there is no place in the Bible that would state otherwise.
2. If Mary was a virgin her entire life, where did James the Brother of Jesus come from, the guy who wrote the Book of James? He is not just some half brother, He was born of Mary! More than that, check out Matthew 12:46, Jesus had more than James for a brother!
4. Where has this come from? This is not in the Bible anywhere.
Again, Jesus Christ is the only Sinless person to walk this earth. If there was another, there would be no need for Christ!
This is nothing but the false teaching of a man. This does not come from the inspired written word of God!
By saying that Mary was sinless, Christ's Power is weakened.
Again I am sorry if this is forceful, but the Bible clearly Points to and States that Jesus Christ was and is the only Sinless One! Non-other than Jesus Christ!
David
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
You have so much on your plate already that I feel terrible for adding more. Totally no rush on this! Others have been waiting longer!
Anyway, I have some more questions about Mary. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Catholic doctrine means (basically) that a sinful nature was 'filtered out' of Mary, but does not deny she was born in the same way as the rest of us?
Second: If Mary was always pure, why did she have to give an offering for her uncleanness after the birth of Jesus?
Third: At one point even Mary thought that Jesus was out of His mind, and went to apprehend Him (Mark 3:21,31). The Bible teaches that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) Soooo . . . ?
Fourth. As has already been pointed out, Mary went on to have other children after Jesus. These were not merely cousins of something of that sort, but she herself was their mother. This was foretold in Psalm 69:8/John 19:26,27.
I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother's children
(Ps 69:8)
So, just how important are those beliefs to Catholicism? (If it's really founded square on Jesus, it shouldn't matter.)
All due respect to Mary, of course.
And just for good measure:
Mark 1:17 said...
'Slave'
FYI
When I talk about the James the Brother of Christ and the Book of James, not being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox I mean the book between Hebrews and 1 Peter.
I do not give any of the apocryphal books any sway, they are not part of the Bible.
If I refer to a book in the manor that I did above it will always mean one of the 66 books of the Bible. However, if I do refer to another book, it will be from a trusted author who is talking about God's Holy Word.
Sorry for the confusion, Hope this clears things up.
Now that I have a basis to start from, actually knuckling down will be a lot easier.
Any other questions that pop up will be ignored until these ones are responded to.
Oy!
God bless!
For the record:
I mentioned James [the 'Gospel of James' or the Protoevangelium of James] because I know we (Gregory and I at least] have mentioned this book on a couple of 'issues'. Most 'Protestants' don't even know it exists - so Book of James, Letter of James, Epistle of James - are all synonymous...That is not true of Catholics. I was just trying to 'clear' the air. This Q&A is complicated enough with misunderstanding which 'reference' one is refering to.
All I was trying to do is 'clarify' 'book' names.
At 'Loren's' request, and something I have wanted to do, I do plan on posting an explanation of protocanonical/deuterocanical books + adjunct scriptures at Views on History, Politics and Religion - when it is up an 'running' I'll leave a message here.
Hopefully I will be able to it the same 'justice' as I did with 'The Catholic Church Accused!'.
Blessings and prayer for you my overworked friend,
Sounds good, Slave. I'll definitely read/comment when it's up. Maybe we could even do the discussion of the Bible, a collection of 66 or 73 (or more?) books there, rather than here. We'll see how it goes.
Thanks for your contributions and your prayers.
God bless
Gregory
(And for the record, WOOT 50th post!)
I was going to attempt to splice up the above 4 posts that I promised to answer into categories, but then I realised it would be more logical and coherent to just tackle them as they are, so I don't miss anything. If I repeat answers, you'll have to bear with me. Mark 1:17's and Loren's words will be italicised. Mine will be normal. I'll be interspersing my replies within theirs, rather than replying after the entire post. I hope that makes sense.
Without any further adieu:
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
"Without Mary, things would not happen. God chose her to bring this about, and in that sense, and in the sense of her faithfulness throughout her life, and the fact that she does actively plead to bring men to Jesus (John 2:5) and is the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27; Rev. 12:17), she subordinately brings the grace of God to His people. She in no way originates those graces, however. And that distinction is the key."
???
If Mary had refused God, this would not have limited God in any way!
Of course not, but that's not really the point. The point is is that God specifically chose and created Mary for the special purpose of bearing Christ into the world. Had she refused, God would have had to postpone His plan. This idea relates explicitly to two concepts: 1-His foreknowledge and predestination (which mysteriously does not interfere with our free will) and 2-Mary's being "full of grace", which we'll discuss when we look at the Immaculate Conception.
Ultimately, the issue isn't whether God could have done it another way, it's that He chose to do it this way--through Mary.
It is the fact that she saw God working around her and chose to enter into God's work (work already started).
Yes, which is a direct result of the fulness of grace that God had granted her, preparing her explicitly for the work that He predestined for her, as He predestines all of us for good works (Ephesians 2:10). God tells us to work through our own salvation, as He works in us to will and to work (Philippians 2:12-13). With Mary, He called her to work with Him for all of our salvation, through her participation in the birth, life, and death of Christ.
Yes, she was the mother of Jesus. But, setting her above any other human is not right. She was 100% human, nothing more and nothing less.
The logic doesn't follow. If Jesus honoured His mother and father, according to the 10 commandments, and we are called to imitate Him, then not only should we give our own parents greater honour than other people (nullifying your later argument), but we should especially honour those whom He Himself honoured (including John the Baptist, and Peter and the other Apostles, among others) but especially His Mother, as she is our Mother also, by adoption (John 19:26-27; Revelation 12:17). You're telling me that you would put yourself on the same level as one of the Apostles? Or more, that you would put yourself on the level of the one to whom the Angel referred as "Full of Grace" as if it were her very name?
Of course Mary was fully human, but a human girl whom God gave the fulness of His Grace. That's a big distinction.
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Mary was human, that means that she was sinful.
Does "all" mean for certain, "every single last person"? I don't think so. After all, if all humans had sinned, that would have to include our Lord, since He was fully human. Yet, Scripture makes Him an exception. So therefore, "all" in Romans 3:23 is not without exceptions. Can you be sure Jesus is the only one? I'd recommend you read this article: "All Have Sinned . . ." (Mary?)
Titus 1:2 "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" Some translations say "who cannot lie"
If we say that Mary had no sin, we are making God out to be a lier [sic], for through Paul he told us that all have sinned! This does not exclude anyone.
Again, that is not necessarily the case. Read the above link.
If you say that God imparted Grace upon Mary and took away her sin, you would be correct,
This is what we say. However, we hold that God did this at the very moment of her conception. In a special and unique way, God saved Mary from her sins before she ever committed any.
However, for anyone who is Christ He has done the very same thing.
The difference is that for all of us, God took away our sins after we committed them. For Mary, He preemptively took them away, so that she would not sin, and thus be a perfect and holy vessel for her Son to be conceived in--fulfilling the type of the Ark of the Old Covenant. But we'll get to that.
We are Human, as well as and just like Mary was Human! She is just like us. The only thing that makes her special in a way, is that she gave birth to Jesus.
I'd say that's a pretty big "only thing", wouldn't you? The only woman in history to give birth as a virgin, to the only Man in history who was also God, and would save all mankind from their sins! I'm not sure you've fully grasped what the Incarnation really means, or you'd have a hard time saying with a straight face that this is some "remote" thing that makes Mary just a "little bit" more special than the rest of us!
The only One who should ever be put on a pedistal is the One who is all deserving of it, Jesus Christ!
And yet, He raises us up to Himself, glorifying us and making us like Him! Through Christ, we actually deserve glory!
To put anyone in a higher postition than another is to take away from Christ.
That's simply absurd. How can you presume to take anything away from God? And even if you could, how could you take away from Him by honouring the very woman whom He honoured above all others?
No Human has a higher position than another,
There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to begin! Suffice it to say that Jesus Himself indicated a hierarchy. He is the one who said, "Among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist--and yet I tell you the truth, even the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (cf. Matt 11:11).
for we are all sinners and deserving of eternal punishment.
We were (or did you skip over Romans 8:1?), but in Christ, so long as we abide in Him, we are liberated from the penalty of death. Of no one is this more true than Mary, whom God chose to actually give Flesh to His plan, and to whom God gave the full life of His Grace!
Christians and Non-Christian are even on the same level.
That's borderline heresy. Hope you explain what you meant...
The only difference is that Christ has come to us, and revealed His saving Grace to us.
Again, do you seriously misunderstand what it means to have been given Christ's Grace? Do you seriously think that no change has taken place inside of you? David, you are a brand new person in Christ Jesus! You are not the same as you were before His Grace infused your spirit with life! You are not even marginally better! You are an entirely new creation in Christ Jesus! Old things have passed away! Behold! All things have become new! (2 Cor 5:17) Don't sell yourself some line of the Devil that nothing is different. I encourage you to read through and meditate on the series Who We Are Instead. The link takes you to part one of 5.
Again no human has any other status than that of being human/sinful.
This is simply untrue. Christ has fundamentally changed those who have come to Him. This does not mean we will never sin again, but it does mean that the more we receive of His Grace, the less we will sin, the more sanctified we will become. It is a process. For Mary, though, she was bestowed the fulness of God's Grace (Luke 1:28). Grace is the antithesis of sin. To be full of one is to be void of the other.
We could look at it in a different way also.
Why exult Mary over Paul? King David? Isaiah? Moses? Abraham? They were all men and women of God and the only thing that sets them apart is that they believed God and they followed Him.
But none of them gave birth to Him, except Mary. None of them were called "Full of Grace" except Mary. Of none of them was it sung, "Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42).
No human can be set above another for we are all the created all fallen creatures.
Dealt with above.
Only Jesus Christ can be exulted, for Only He is the Creator/sinless.
Only Jesus is worthy of our adoration, yes, our latria or worship. But He Himself honours and commands us to honour--dulia, veneration, others, especially the heroes of faith, and above all, the heroine par excellence His own mother--whom He honoured with the totality of His grace and chose to bear Him into the world to be our salvation.
He is the Alpha and Omega and He has left His signature in the Bible. Check out this site: http://cyberanger.blogspot.com/2005/08/aleph-tav-jesus-signature-in-bible.html
I am not contending that He is otherwise. I am contending that He is not so petty or insecure that to honour those He honours threatens Him somehow--but rather, just as marvelling at a painting is giving praise to the artist, not taking praise away from the artist, so honouring Christ's workmanship (Eph 2:10) in the lives of His Saints is ultimately giving greater honour to Him, not less.
Christ and only Christ should be exulted. We can point the way to Christ, but that does not put us in a position over anyone else.
Only Christ should be worshipped as God, but there is an honour that we pay to fellow humans that is their rightful due, and is commanded in Scripture. Those in authority over us are to be honoured, and those who have lived the life of Grace are to be revered because they encourage us to follow their example.
First you denegrate yourself by calling yourself nothing better than a lousy sinner. Then you presume to ascribe these thoughts of loathing upon the Saints who have heroically lived the life of Grace that God has given to them! It is a strange form of pride that does this and not a genuine humility.
Sorry if that sounds forcefull, but this is something that I am very passionate about. Jesus Christ is the only one to ever be lifted up.
I'm sorry if my reply sounds forceful, but your passionate post is not reflective of a true understanding of the life of Grace. St. Peter tells us that we have become partakers of His divine nature (2 Pet 1:4)! Yes, Christ is to be lifted up, but He brings us up with Him!
David
For the sake of readability, I'm going to do this response in a number of parts.
Part 2 will deal with the first of the four Marian Dogmas that I listed above: The Immaculate Conception. Since we dealt with the third, Mother of God, at length above, I'm not going to redo that one.
God bless.
Part 2
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
You said above; "There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
1. That she was conceived "immaculately", meaning that at the moment of Conception, the Holy Spirit kept her from inheriting the stain of original sin, like the rest of us do. Through this pre-emptively saving action of the Holy Spirit, Mary was able to live a perfectly holy and sinless life.
...
Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
Why do you exclude #3 (other than the fact that we've dealt with it at length above)? It isn't explicitly in the Bible. If it was, the early Church could have pointed to chapter and verse rather than spending years in discussion over the Nestorian heresy (which, as an aside, Slave, there are many who hold to incorrect Christologies similar to Nestorianism. Many scholars [esp. Catholics] have accused the Reformed Churches of having a view that borders on it--so it's not as obscure as you might think; but that's from an earlier conversation).
Something to note, though, David, is that you ask me where certain teachings are in the Bible (as if you would have me give you a chapter-and-verse reference for it), but your whole notion that something must be in the Bible for it to form a part of Christian teaching is itself not in the Bible.
For example, the Trinity as a doctrine is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible. It took the Church nearly 400 years to come to complete consensus on that! In fact, oddly enough, the idea that something should be in the Bible in order for Christians to believe it (or "sola scriptura") is itself not taught in the Bible! Neither is the other big Protestant pillar, Sola Fide! In fact, the only time "Faith Alone" occurs in all of Scripture, is in James chapter 2, where he says, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." Hey! Try it for yourself: Blue Letter Bible
So before you go all "Where is that in the Bible?" on me, I could do well to ask you the same question about some of your most valued beliefs.
Catholics believe in the "material sufficiency" of Scripture--meaning that everything that we believe is somehow alluded to or hinted at in Scripture, or in no way contradicts Scripture, properly understood. This is contrasted with "absolute sufficiency" or Scripture tells us absolutely everything one needs to know about what to believe as a Christian.
That being said, let us examine biblical proofs or evidences for these doctrines (save #3, since it has been extensively dealt with already):
1. That she was conceived "immaculately".
Luke 1:28 is the clearest and most direct evidence to the Immaculate Conception in Scripture--though, admittedly, it falls short of actually "proving" it.
"Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you."
(or, as more commonly translated, "Hail, full of grace! the Lord is with you.")
The key to this is in the phrase "Full of Grace", or as some translations have it, "highly favoured one", or "favoured of God". The reason translations differ on how to precisely translate it is because there is no equivalent English word for the Greek word used. In fact, the Greek word is highly complex and literally conveys a phrase or a clause in one compounded word.
This one word, when I studied it in depth, tilted the scales steeply in favour of Roman Catholicism. The word is "Kecharitomene".
Let's unpack it:
The root word is "Charitoo", which is used only twice in Scripture. Only once does Charitoo appear in the construction that we have above. That's pretty significant.
The other occurence is Ephesians 1:6: "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Here, the word is in the "aorist" tense, which has no equivalent in the English language. It is a tense with no regard for past, present, or future. It is also an active word, being done by the subject (Christ), and in this case, is stated rather matter-of-factly. "Christ gives us His grace."
Grace, after all, is the meaning of "Charitoo":
According to Thayer's Lexicon--
1) to make graceful
a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3) to honour with blessings
By contrast, the form of Charitoo used in Luke 1:28 is in the perfect tense, which is the same in Greek as in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated.
Furthermore, it is passive. Mary, in this instance, is the recipient of this grace.
Finally, it is a participle. A Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the
English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed
to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either
like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed
a "verbal noun."
This information can all be gotten at Blue Letter Bible: Luke 1:28
I would also suggest reading this section of a rather long paper for more relevant exegesis of Kecharitomene.
Here, I will simply spell out that the word, according to Greek scholars, means that Mary, at some point (undetermined in Scripture) prior to Gabriel's visit, was completely filled with God's grace, in such a way that was complete and enduring (contrasted to the rest of us, who progress continually in God's Grace as He completes the work He began in us (Philippians 1:6). The work begun in us that is continuing, is finished in Mary, and was finished when the Angel showed up.
God created her immaculate, so that she would be a fitting vessel for Christ. She is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Just as the OT Ark carried the 10 Commandments, the Word of God, Mary carried the Word of God in flesh--who Himself wrote the Law. Whereas the OT Ark carried the staff of Aaron that budded, confirming his priesthood, Mary carried Christ, our High Priest, who, like the staff, died, and rose again, bringing forth new life! As the OT Ark carried some of the Manna from the wilderness, Mary carried the true Bread from Heaven! She fulfilled the type of the Ark.
Key to that, is that the Ark was commanded to be created perfect in every detail. A type is always less than its fulfilment, and there is no exception to that Scriptural rule. If the Ark was perfect, Mary was created moreso.
The New Testament demonstrates Mary's link to the Ark in a couple interesting ways: In Luke 1:39-45, there is a striking linguistic parallel between the story of Mary's visitation to Elizabeth, and David's bringing the Ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. More explicitly, in Revelation 11:19, John has a vision of the Heavens opened with great sound and fury, and the Ark in Heaven in the midst of the Heavenly Temple. In the very next verse, 12:1, he continues the description, but it is of a Woman crowned with 12 stars, clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, and giving birth to the Messiah. Keeping in mind that chapter/verse references were a mediaeval addition to the text, and not inspired, the vision of the Ark (long awaited to reappear at the endtimes) is the self-same as the vision of Mary and "Christmas from a heavenly perspective" if you will.
All of this (and much more) points to the immaculate conception.
1. If Mary was without sin, she would be the exact same as Christ!
This is most certainly not true! Her sinlessness in no way makes her Divine! She is not part of the Godhead! That is what sets Christ apart. As Loren said, it is His Humanity and His Divinity, together in one person, that sets Him apart as the one who brings humanity to God!
Christ's sinlessness is a secondary point to His role as mediator. If He were not both God and Man, the issue would be moot. Because He is both God and Man, His sinlessness enables Him to fully pay for our sins by fulfilling the Law perfectly.
Mary is not divine, and thus cannot of herself bridge the gap between God and us. Any mediation that she does is only through the High Priestly mediation of Christ, and is completely, 100% subordinate to that. Her sinlessness is a moot issue to her "being exactly like Christ", because Christ's sinlessness proceeds out of His divinity. He owns His sinlessness. Mary's sinlessness is derived from Christ. He bestows it upon her. She does not own it. That is why "Kecharitomene" is a passive word.
Christ was the only sinless person to walk this earth!
John 8:7 & Hebrews 4:14-16
Neither text makes your point. One says that the hypocritical pharisees were sinful, and thus, they did not stone the woman caught in adultery (it makes no statement about all of mankind whatsoever) and the second affirms that Christ was indeed sinless. But neither passage claims He was the only sinless one. Romans 3:23 is your best point there, and it isn't even invincible, if you read the link in the above post...
Non-other than Christ, there is no place in the Bible that would state otherwise.
As explained above, Luke 1:28 comes pretty close, as does the Ark typology (and others). Luke 1:28 is closest, though, since God's Grace irradicates sin, and if Mary was full of God's Grace, all sin must therefore have been erased from her life.
It is an inescapable conclusion, and was thus infallibly defined by the Catholic Church.
Next...
"sola scriptura"
Proverbs 30:5-6,
"5 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver."
2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 1:13; Psalm 119:105, 160; 12:6.
"sola fida"
Ephesians 2:8-9
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast."
Blessings,
Part 3
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
You said above; "There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
2. That she was a virgin throughout her entire life (ie, not just up until she gave birth to Christ, but for all of her life).
...
Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
Again, Mary's perpetual virginity is not explicitly spelled out in Scripture, but it is strongly alluded to.
Outside of Scripture, the book that Slave and I have mentioned on occasion, The Protoevangelion of James is, I think, the first work to actually mention and spell out this teaching. Granted, it's considered pseudopigraphical (not actually authored by St. James), but its early date (2nd Century) shows us how early the doctrine was being taught--and it had since been passed down through the Church as an undisputed doctrine, even well into the Reformation. Martin Luther and John Calvin both believed it, and Luther even had harsh and condemning words (as was his wont) for those who denied it!
But you want to know where in the Bible is it. I could turn the question on its head, however, because the Bible nowhere says that Mary had other children. To quote author and apologist Patrick Madrid, from "Where is That in the Bible?" (an apt title, don't you think?):
The Bible nowhere says that Mary had other children besides Jesus. Nor does the Bible ever refer to anyone besides Jesus as the "son of Mary." Some passages refer, however, to the "brothers of the Lord," and these passages (Matt. 12:46-48; 13:55-56; 27:56) are sometimes invoked in an attempt to disprove the Catholic Church's teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Notice that in these passages, such as in Matthew 13, two of the four men mentioned by name and called "brothers of the Lord," are actually sons of another Mary, the wife of Cleophas (cf. James and Joseph: Matt 27:56; John 19:25).
Yeah, okay, that's all I'll quote! Notable points, though, are the fact that Mary asks Gabriel possibly the dumbest question ever if she was not intending to remain a virgin all her life: "But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man?" (Luke 1:34) Mary was engaged to marry Joseph at this point. She darn well knew how babies are made. What she didn't know was how a baby could be made in her particular circumstance of consecrated virginity (as the P. of James narrates for us--not that it's inspired writing...it just happens to fit the facts).
Other evidence is at the foot of the Cross. Jesus, in His eternal love and concern for His Mother, entrusts her to the care of John. This would have been unnecessary, and even unacceptable behaviour if she actually had other sons. My fiancée pointed that out to me way back when. I had no good answer for it then, and I still don't have one now.
For further reading on the subject, I'd recommend Mary: Ever Virgin and "Brothers of Jesus" Part 1 and Part 2
So now we'll skip Doctrine 3: Mother of God, since we've treated it extensively already, and we'll move on to...
Slave, you just had to slip that in there, didn't you. When I'm done the Mary stuff, I'll show you how those passages teach neither sola scriptura nor sola fide. But for now,
Part 4
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
You said above; "There are four infallibly defined teachings about Mary in the Catholic Church:
4. That at the time of her death, she was taken up to heaven (assumed) bodily, like Enoch and Elijah (and Moses, according to some Jewish traditions)."
Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
The Assumption of Mary
My first question to you would be, where would you like to see this in the Bible, David? We don't see St. Paul's death recorded in the Bible, but we know that he was beheaded by Nero. Same with St. Peter, but we know that he was crucified upside down around the same time, because he felt unworthy to die the same was that Jesus did.
Most, if not all (depending on when you date the writings of St. John) the books of the New Testament were recorded while Mary was still alive. So where exactly would you like to see reference to her death and assumption?
The only place we could possibly look would be in John's writings. Well, we can rule out his Gospel, because that, John admits, doesn't even tell the full story of Jesus, let alone anyone else--and it ends before His Ascension!
John's epistles? They were written for a specific purpose, and there is a lot of good stuff they could have mentioned, but didn't. It's no surprise that Mary wasn't mentioned.
How about the Revelation? Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! The last book the NT to be written...what does it say about Mary?
What's this? A whole chapter is dedicated to her?! And in it, she's depicted as a) in Heaven (11:19), b) the Ark of the Covenant (11:19), c) Crowned with 12 stars (12:1), d) Robed with the sun (12:1), e) Standing on the moon, and f) (among other things), the Mother of all those who bear witness to Jesus Christ (12:17)!
Hey, if Slave can construe Proverbs 30:5-6 to teach Sola Scriptura, Revelation 12 can with exceedingly great ease be taken to demonstrate Mary's assumption into Heaven!
Furthermore, the Bible certainly indicates that such occurences are possible, as in the case of Enoch and of Elijah. So Scripture certainly doesn't rule it out. It also follows logically from Mary's immaculate conception and sinless life. If the wages of sin is death, then the gift of God, fully given to Mary (Full of Grace, remember?) is most definitely eternal life! And what more fitting a way for Jesus to fulfil the 4th Commandment, to honour His Father and Mother, than to preserve her from the decay of death by bringing her immediately, bodily, to Heaven--a foretaste of our own coming resurrections?
Furthermore, for a Church that was so careful to preserve the tombs and relics of the Saints, the fact that there are no Marian relics at all speaks volumes. So does the fact that two cities both claim her empty tomb!
Everything else in your second post has been thoroughly dealt with above, David. I hope my answers are satisfactory to demonstrate, at least, that the Catholic view didn't just come out of left field somewhere!
So yeah, it's now 4:20 am. I've been at this all night, and I'm only half done (and Slave has generously donated to the workload :D ). I'm calling it quits for tonight.
Tomorrow, I'll respond to Loren's comments (though they've probably more than adequately been covered above). I remember seeing some interesting points.
Then, I'll look at David's comment about sola scriptura, 66 books, and those alone holding any sway with him, as well as Slave's "supports" for sola scriptura and sola fide.
G'night everybody!
And we're back with
Part 5!
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
You have so much on your plate already that I feel terrible for adding more. Totally no rush on this! Others have been waiting longer!
Well, today is your lucky day! LOL
Granted, I won't be doing another Open Q&A for a loooong while :D It's been a lot of fun, though. I got challenged, I got to reexamine what I believe, and I hope I got to present it compellingly--even if you, Slave, or David never converts, my goal is to show Catholicism is a Christ-centred Christianity with a sound basis for its doctrines. Maybe it'll help others curious about the faith. Maybe it will help you. Who knows. I pray that God uses it for His purposes, whatever they may be.
Anyway, I have some more questions about Mary. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the Catholic doctrine means (basically) that a sinful nature was 'filtered out' of Mary, but does not deny she was born in the same way as the rest of us?
That's a pretty good grip on the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Most Protestants often end up thinking that we think Mary herself was somehow born of a virgin or something like that. No, she was conceived through the natural means (hey Chantelle, if you're still around, there's that "s" word again lol), but at the moment of her conception, through a special act of God's Grace, the Holy Spirit filled her with His Grace, thus irradicating (or 'filtering out') the sinful nature. She was, in effect, born in the same state as Adam and Eve were before The Fall. Mary fulfils the Eve typology--a Second Eve to Jesus' Second Adam. The first Church Father to teach this explicitly was St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who, in turn was a disciple of St. John, who wrote more about Mary than any other NT writer (Luke would be second), and who actually took Mary home as his mother after the Crucifixion. Thus, it is extremely easy to trace Marian teachings straight back to the Apostles.
As for the "filtering out", realise that this was a saving act, and Mary needed a Saviour (Luke 1:47). But while for us, Christ saved us after we sinned, Christ saved Mary beforehand.
Think of it this way: Remember the scene in Pilgim's Progress, where Christian falls into the Slough of Despond? Sin is like that slough, and God rescues us out of it, saving us. For Mary, though, He prevented her from ever falling into the slough, saving her. Her salvation is actually greater than ours, and she has even more reason to "rejoice in God [her] Saviour!"
Second: If Mary was always pure, why did she have to give an offering for her uncleanness after the birth of Jesus?
There is a difference in the OT Levitical laws between "ritually pure" and "sinful". Ritual purity many times included or resulted from sinful acts, but many times were merely physical imperfections or circumstances that made one temporarily "unclean". Childbirth was one such situation, because it involves blood. Thus, while it is obviously not a sin to give birth, Mary offered the gifts for purification because the totally unsinful act was still a cause of ritual impurity.
Further, her offering demonstrates her full obedience, without sin, to the Law of God.
Third: At one point even Mary thought that Jesus was out of His mind, and went to apprehend Him (Mark 3:21,31). The Bible teaches that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) Soooo . . . ?
Actually, you are inferring that this is the case. The Bible never explicitly says so:
"When his relations heard of this, they set out to take charge of Him; they said, 'He is out of His mind.'...Now His mother and his brothers arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for Him" (Mark 3:21,31).
It is a bit of a stretch to identify the "relations" with His "Mother and brothers", and "asking for Him" with "tak[ing] charge of Him". But even if verse 31 is reflexive of verse 21, it is just as likely that Mary was with the "brothers" because they thought she would get Jesus' attention easier, even if she did not agree with their conclusions.
One would have to wonder how Mary could go from an angelic visitation, a virgin birth, seeing her 12 year old teaching the Scribes in the Temple, and telling Him to perform His first miracle (water into wine), to doubting His sanity! It doesn't really add up--and the fact that she is not actually named in 3:21 bears that out--as does the fact that she was one of the very few who actually remained all the way up to the Crucifixion!
So I have to suggest that your interpretation of Mark 3:21,31 is faulty, or at best inconclusive.
Fourth. As has already been pointed out, Mary went on to have other children after Jesus. These were not merely cousins of something of that sort, but she herself was their mother.
The New Testament nowhere calls Jesus' "brothers", Mary's "sons". The Protoevangelium of James identifies them as foster brothers, from a previous marriage of Joseph's--but the P of J is not inspired, and most likely pseudopigraphical. But it is a convincing theory, and one that is held by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Catholics typically hold that they are His cousins, but their identity has not been infallibly defined (meaning we can debate over who they are at our leisure). It has been Defined, however, that they are not Mary's sons (faithful Catholics can't include that option in their debates :D ).
This was foretold in Psalm 69:8/John 19:26,27.
I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother's children
(Ps 69:8)
Using prophecy to make the point is somewhat weak. Especially poetically speaking. If we were to take them literally at every point, we would have to argue that God never responded to Jesus' prayers (Psalm 22:2), that Jesus was not a human, but in fact was less than human (!) (Psalm 22:6), that all who looked at Him did so mockingly (Psalm 22:7) (Mary, John, and the other women who were at the cross would have to be included if we were to take this literally. By the way, David, here's a good example where "all" doesn't necessarily mean "every last one"). I could multiply examples in Psalm 69 itself (Jesus never was recorded as dressing in sackcloth and fasting, for example). So when do we know a verse in Psalm 69 is actually prophetic of Christ? They surely are; there is no doubt. But the fact that a literal-in-every-point fulfilment is not present does not negate their prophetic value. The Psalms are poetry, and they were written to reflect a specific set of circumstances at the time they were written (and the Holy Spirit's inspiration also made parts prophetic), but even in their original context, they are not literal descriptions of the author's life, but emotional reflections and prayers!
Furthermore, with regard to 69:8 specifically, Hebrew poetry is written in "parallelism", which is both similar to and greatly different than contemporary English poetry. Typically, a couplet in our poems rhyme audibly (the ending words sound the same). Hebrew parrallelism rhyme, but not audibly. They rhyme in their ideas. Often the same thought is expressed in two lines that mean the same thing in different words. (Usually the verse numbering reflects this, in that a couplet is contained in a single verse.)
In Psalm 69:8, the thought is that the author's family has deserted him in his time of distress. We do see that fulfilled in Jesus' life. All His disciples have fled. His closest family relations don't even believe in Him, and all that are left are a few holy women, His mother, and the disciple whom He loved.
This very neatly fulfils the meaning of Psalm 69:8. The details in the Psalm are irrelevant as the nuances of Hebrew poetry. "Mother's sons" is a poetic alternative to "brothers", and was perhaps a literal discription of David's circumstance. But it cannot be applied so rigidly to Christ's circumstances.
This, again, is bourne out in the fact that Jesus gave Mary to John. The brothers, who may have deserted Jesus at His death, did not by that action desert Mary, and would have had the responsibility of caring for her! To neglect this duty was not only a great sin, it would make you cultural pariahs to the Jews!
The fact that Jesus did something so culturally and familially unacceptable as give Mary into the care of one who was not her blood relative (unacceptable if there were family whose duty it would have been) shows very clearly that there was no other family to fulfil that duty.
Otherwise, the passage in John 19 would have gone more like, "John, make sure Mary gets home to James (or whichever "brother" was the eldest)." Instead we have John treating Mary as his own Mother, and taking her home to his own house!
So, just how important are those beliefs to Catholicism? (If it's really founded square on Jesus, it shouldn't matter.)
As a matter of de fide teaching, to be in faithful union with the Catholic Church, they must be believed. Granted, one can be saved through Christ outside of the Catholic Church, but only in the Catholic Church is the fulness of the grace that He gives us through the sacramental life.
If these teachings are in fact the truth, then they would be important to be believed. That these doctrines were defined to reflect upon our understanding of Christ (as I reflected on way up there when I first delineated them), disbelieving them could lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Nature of Christ (though this is not necessarily so).
In that sense, I'd say they're relatively important, if not the most important things.
All due respect to Mary, of course.
Of course! That's our Mother you're talking about!
addendum
This concludes my replies to questions about Mary (unless others are brought up). Next will be an examination of Mark 1:17's comments about Scriptural authority and Unchained Slave's comments about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide!
For now, though, it's off to get ready for Mass!
God bless!
Hi Gregory,
Well, I have to admire your pluck. You’re doing your best! But it still comes to this. The things that Catholicism teaches on Mary are not taught in the Bible, and when we come up with information that is, it seems to get poo-pooed or explained away. Maryology is simply part of a tradition which Catholicism hopes will be viewed as harmless, but instead it brings up some worrisome implications that perhaps were not anticipated. As a result, your brave and generous apologetic, though I do not doubt your sincerity, sounds like damage control.
When someone’s beliefs are challenged they will naturally feel defensive, which is very understandable. The problem is that, in the short run, it can lead them to compromise. Any answer they hear, even a bad one, is still an answer, and it tells them, ‘My church has heard this question before; they have considered it; they still feel as if they’re on solid ground’, and so most people are willing to leave it at that rather than pressing their luck and finding out something they don’t want to hear.
I understand that will be the outcome for now, but I also know that the Lord is the real Teacher, and He is gently tenacious (Matt 23:8-10; 2 Pet 3:9). In quiet moments and in His own ways, He will bring this conversation back to those who participated, or even those who observed, and speak to them in their hearts. My only regret is that Mary became the focus rather than Jesus, except in the ways her role (by the standards of Catholicism), have eclipsed Jesus. But that also means that this challenge can be resolved in the Lord’s favor for the one who is brave enough to draw closer to Him. My wife actually did that, by the way. She converted from Catholicism.
Gregory, if you could approach Jesus yourself, without Mary or a priest or a saint or any other mediator – would you? If you knew He would definitely receive you? (John 6:37). Christianity is a constant impetus to do just this:
“Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
(Phil 3:13-14)
May the Lord bring you on a successful journey.
Mark 1:17 said...
'Slave'
FYI
When I talk about the James the Brother of Christ and the Book of James, not being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox I mean the book between Hebrews and 1 Peter.
That was always what I assumed you meant (of course, you're not actually directing this comment to me. But proper titles all around might help. The canonical book of James is the "Epistle of James", and the pseudopigraphical early church writing is the "Protoevangelium of James". For the record "Protoevangelium" means "first gospel" or "before the Gospel", and is kind of the "Star Wars: Episode 1" of the Gospels. It tells the back story without in any way rivalling the "good stuff" ;) (I can't believe I just referenced Star Wars!)
I do not give any of the apocryphal books any sway, they are not part of the Bible.
What are you referring to as "Apocryphal"? (This will become the main issue of this reply, soon.) The Protoevangelium has never been treated in any way as being Scriptural, whereas the seven books of the OT that Protestants reject (and frequently refer to as "Apocrypha" although that's a misleading term) were accepted as Scripture up until the Reformation. Clarification of terms is appreciated.
Moreoever, though, saying you don't give them "any sway" because they are not part of the Bible is an odd thing to say. Many things that we believe as Christians aren't part of the Bible. In fact, the very list of the books of the Bible isn't in the Bible! So how do you even know what books to accept or reject, or which books have sway?
Furthermore, on your own blog, you reference contemporary writers because of the sway that they've had. You've referenced Matt Redman's book as well as stuff by John Piper and RC Sproul (I think). If early writings hold no sway because they aren't part of the Bible, then why do Piper or Redman's? It's a self-contradictory notion.
If I refer to a book in the manor that I did above it will always mean one of the 66 books of the Bible.
If the Church for 1500 years taught that there were 73 books in the Bible, on what grounds do you assert only 66? For that matter, how do you know that those 66 are in fact the right 66, except for the "not in Scripture" councils that made those decisions? The Table of Contents at the front of your NIV (or whatever translation you prefer) is not any more inspired than the Protoevangelium of James.
However, if I do refer to another book, it will be from a trusted author who is talking about God's Holy Word.
What makes them a "trusted author"? If you quoted someone who talks about God's Word, and I demonstrate that their perspective is wrong, or perhaps incomplete, will they still be trusted? How do you determine their trustworthiness? By the fact that you agree with their conclusions? By the fact that they've studied it more than you? By the fact that your pastor might quote them in a sermon? Seriously, I'd like to know what makes an author you would quote more trustworthy than the author of the Protoevangelium of James. I would definitely like to know how an author that you reference could possibly be considered more trustworthy than one of the Biblical books that Protestants just happen to reject (like, for example, the Book of Wisdom, which, judging by the amount of times it is referenced by him, seems to be one of St. Augustine's favourites!).
Sorry for the confusion, Hope this clears things up.
Actually, per the above, it just creates more questions in my mind.
Loren and I began a discussion on the so-called "apocryphal" books of the OT (the Catholics refer to them as "Deutero-Canonical"), and he said that they were "rightfully rejected because they contain doctrinal error."
But this begs the question. Several, actually.
1. Who decides what's included or rejected from Scripture?
2. Does Doctrine influence Scripture, or does Scripture influence doctrine? (Loren, in your module on Assurance, you delineate criteria based on the Scriptures for determining correct doctrine. If Books accepted as Scripture up until the Reformation can then be excluded because of "doctrinal error", it is evident that doctrine is defining Scripture and not the other way around.)
3. Finally, what in these books could be construed as "incorrect doctrine"? Since our original discussion, I've read through the Additions to Esther and to Daniel, I've read Tobit, Judith, Baruch, and Wisdom. I'm about half-way through 1 Maccabees. That leaves 2 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach). So far, in 4 and a half books and the additions, I have seen nothing that is a "doctrinal error." I'm still working through 1 Maccabees as I said, and then 2 Mac and Sirach. You said that you recalled something approaching "pantheism" in Sirach. But it boils down to the burden of proof being on you to demonstrate that each of the seven books (plus the additions to Esther and Daniel). I'd appreciate chapter and verse references, if you wouldn't mind.
If doctrinal error is not the reason, then what, pray tell, is? And if they are in fact divinely inspired, then could it be possible that your doctrine needs adjusting, and not the Bible's table of contents?
But that goes back again to the question of who has the authority to decide which books belong in the Bible, and which do not. This is a bit of a quandary for the Sola Scripturists, for the Bible itself doesn't give us any clues. It was up to the Church to decide.
I'll let you mull that over and see if we want to explore it deeper.
God bless.
Mark 1:17
"Where are these in the Bible (save #3) 1,2,and 4?
1. If Mary was without sin, she would be the exact same as Christ! "
Do you really believe that before the fall Adam and Eve were the exact same as Christ?
Gilbert
Hi Gregory,
Since you ask, I’ll take the opportunity to clarify for the benefit of those who didn’t read our discussion on my blog. The closing of the Old Testament canon was foretold in Daniel 9:24 as a parameter, and the other end of that parameter would be fulfilled with the baptism of Jesus:
"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.
(Dan 9:24)
I think anyone can see that for the prophecy of Christ to play a truly valid role, it had to be established and settled well in advance, long before He came. God foretold the closing of the Old Testament canon in Daniel 9:24, and this shows me His hand in guiding it. If we argue that a later counsel ‘amended the error’, you must show me God foretelling that as well, and as a result claim that the ‘real’ Messiah has not yet come. Ouch! And the changes that Catholicism has advocated all have to do with the Old Testament. Ouch again!
However, there is no similar prophecy about the New Testament canon. The criteria we discussed on my blog was based on that, and in theory I would have no problem at all in re-examining those, or any ‘new’ ancient texts that ever surfaced.
The Church, from the time of Christ until the Reformation, has never taught the doctrines of "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide". They were novel inventions of Martin Luther, and became the pillar of the Reformation. It has been (correctly) said that Protestantism rises or falls on these two doctrines.
But if these teachings are true, why did God wait 1500 years to "reveal" them? Or, how could He have let them be lost for so long, if His Church truly is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the Gates of Hell would never prevail against her (Matthew 16:18)?
If indeed Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are true, then God is a liar, for the pillar and foundation of the truth would have been teaching lies for 1500 years, and the Gates of Hell would have been prevailing for that time!
The Catholic Church teaches what could be refered to as "Sola Verbum Dei", or The Word of God Alone. But the Word of God is not simply the Bible. It is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1), who communicates His Word to us through the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), the teaching authority of the Church (Luke 10:16), and through Apostolic Tradition (2 Timothy 2:2).
Thus, we are not bound, strictly speaking, just to what is between the covers of our Bibles. The Word of God is living and active (Hebrews 4:12). Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture, meaning that our doctrines are alluded to, or contained in a kernel form, within the pages of the Bible, but not necessarily explicitly spelled out. Often, the doctrines (like the Assumption of Mary) is something that is pieced together from other clear doctrines of scripture that lead to its conclusion (coupled with the historic Tradition of the Church). The most striking example of how Sacred Tradition and the authoritative teaching power of the Church works is in the closing of the Canon itself. The Bible, as I said above, never states which books belong in it. The Church decided that, over a series of more than 300 years and many councils. Led by the Spirit, they closed the Canon, declaring which books were indeed God-breathed. Without the Church, we would not even know which Scriptures were truly God's Word--and without the Church, those Scriptures would not be properly interpreted.
By contrast, the Protestant notion of "Sola Scriptura" states that everything Christians believe must be contained in Scripture. This is a bit of an odd premise, considering that "Sola Scriptura" is itself not taught in the Bible. The same goes for the doctrine of "Sola Fide". I brought this up above, and Unchained Slave listed off a series of references in order to attempt to defend the doctrines. Now I will examine the passages listed in order to see if they do, in fact, teach what they've been marshalled in defence of.
Then, I will demonstrate with Scripture, that the Bible actually teaches the Catholic perspective.
Unchained Slave said...
"sola scriptura"
Proverbs 30:5-6,
"5 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver."
The irony in using a passage from the book of Proverbs to prove sola scriptura makes me laugh (irony being my favourite form of humour). The first thing to point out is that the phrase, "The Word of God" does not necessarily mean the Scriptures. This is evident by the very author of this proverb (No, I don't mean God; the human author!). His name is Agur, the son of Jakeh, of Massa (Proverbs 30:1). Massa is in Northern Arabia, the home also of Lemuel (the guy who wrote the Proverbs of chapter 31). Most notably, Agur is a Gentile, and would not in those days have had access to the Torah as the Jews did. Thus, he could not possibly have been referring to the Jewish Scriptures as the Word of God. Rather, he is saying in truth what the Spirit had revealed to him--that when God speaks, it is powerful and effective (cf Isaiah 55:11).
Now, the really ironic part comes in verse 6. I think you might enjoy this as much as I do!
"To His words make no addition
Lest He reprove you
And account you a liar."
This verse is found in a book which is a compilation of sayings by at least four authors (Solomon, Agur, Lemuel, and at least one other wise man [22:17-24:33]). So, by "adding" to God's words, what exactly could be meant by a proverb contained in a compiled volume? Couple that with the fact that most of the prophets were written after this compilation--not to mention the entire New Testament, and the irony should be strikingly clear.
The only other place in Scripture where this warning is given is in the book of Revelation, where contextually it refers to the Revelation itself, and not the totality of Scripture. Furthermore, Revelation was one of the New Testament books that Sola Scriptura originator, Martin Luther, wanted to remove from the Canon (though he was talked out of it by some very sensible peers).
Therefore, Proverbs 30:5-6 do not teach Sola Scriptura. They do say that we must not play games with God's Word, but it does not localise or define God's Word to the Scripture.
2 Tim. 3:16;
"All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them how to be upright."
This is the classic prooftext, but it falls short for a number of reasons. First, for it to be teaching "Sola Scriptura", it would have to say something to the effect of, "Only scripture is inspired by God, and it alone is useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them how to be upright." But it doesn't say that.
Second, 2 Timothy actually talks about passing on the traditions that Timothy received from Paul: 1:13; 2:2; 3:10, and 3:14. Further Scriptures that hold Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church to be on equal footing with Scripture are Matthew 16:16-19 (binding and loosing); 18:17-18 (Church discipline); Luke 10:16 (Teach in Christ's name); Leviticus 20:1-27; 25:1-55 (priests have authority to interpret scripture bindingly); Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (dissension from priestly decision punishable by death); Matthew 28:20 (authority from Christ to teach...); Acts 2:14-36 (...to interpret Scripture...); Acts 15:28-29 (...and bind and loose, again).
Compare also 1 Corinthians 10:8; 11:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Peter 3:15-17 and 1:20-2:1.
Third, the Scriptures that Paul seems to be referring to here are the Old Testament, since there is no sign in his letters that any NT documents were regarded as Scriptural.
2 Peter 1:20, 21;
I find it highly amusing that you marshalled references that teach against Sola Scriptura to defend it.
"At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them. (2:1)As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views and, by disowning the Lord who bought them freedom, will bring upon themselves speedy destruction."
This is saying that there must be an interpreter of Scripture outside of just "me and the text". At the end of Peter's epistle, he returns to this thought, even referencing St. Paul's letters:
"Think of our Lord's patience as your opportunity to be saved; our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given. He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that the uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture--to their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:15-17).
Peter warns us that there are people who distort Scripture, including the false teachers of 2:1. It is only the authoritative body of the Church that can and has throughout history defended the orthodox faith against such heresies (like Arianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, and so on, even to the current day, where even so-called "Spirit-filled" groups like the Jesus-Only Pentecostals deny the Trinity based on the principle of Sola Scriptura!).
2 Tim. 1:13;
This is the second time we've marshalled the same Scripture for contrary purposes. That alone indicates to me that an authoritative interpreter beyond Scripture alone is needed to show us the meaning of Scripture!
"Keep as your pattern the sound teaching you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." This doesn't even mention Scripture. Instead, St. Paul is telling St. Timothy to pass on the teachings that he heard from him! A few verses later, in chapter 2, verse 2, Paul then tells Timothy to pass on the teachings that he heard! This is Sacred Tradition very neatly spelled out in Scripture! (Ironically, one could arrive at the need and validity of Tradition using the methodology of Sola Scriptura, but one cannot arrive at Sola Scriptura without using the methodology of a Tradition (particularly, Luther's).
Psalm 119:105, 160;
"Your word is a lamp for my feet,
A light for my path" (105).
"Faithfulness is the essense of Your word,
Your upright judgements hold good forever" (160).
Yes, but again, these neither say that only Scripture teaches us God's truth, or even that the "Word" is actually Scripture!
[Psalm] 12:6.
"Yahweh's promises are unalloyed,
Natural silver which comes from the earth seven times refined."
...
That actually says nothing at all about Scripture. God's promises to Abraham could have been described to him the same way long before Moses wrote them down some 500 years later!
For the record, some texts that indicate that "God's Word" doesn't necessarily mean Scripture:
Luke 3:2-3 (John the Baptist never wrote any Scripture); Luke 4:44, 5:1 (Jesus' preaching); Luke 8:11-15 (the Gospel message); John 1:1, 14 (Jesus Himself); Acts 4:31 (the Apostles' preaching); 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (the Apostles' preaching); Hebrews 11:3 (God's creative Word).
"sola fida" [sic]
Ephesians 2:8-9
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast."
What, that's it? Notably, the word "alone" doesn't occur anywhere here. More, you stopped the passage short.
"We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life" (2:10).
By God's grace we are saved, through faith which is alive in us only when we are living it (James 2:14-26).
God commands us to work out our own salvation, as He works in us both the desire and the ability to work (Philippians 2:12-13).
Of all people, Loren Himself explained the Catholic doctrine of Salvation by Grace Alone, through our faith lived in our works, in his module on Assurance (no, I'm not the "Greg" being addressed).
Scripture is replete with references that our salvation is God's free gift of Grace, but that grace energises us both to have faith and to do Good Works. Repeatedly the Bible tells us that we will be judged by our works:
Matt 7:21-23; 19:16-17; 24:13; 25:34-46; Luke 6:27-36, 46-49; Rom 2:4-13; 5:2; 8:25; 11:22-23; 1 Cor 9:27; Gal 5:1-6; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:12-13; Heb 10:24-29; Jas 1:22-25; 2:14-26; 1 Pet 2:20-21; 1 Jn 3:7; 5:3
This is not to say that Catholicism teaches that we are saved by our works alone. "Alone" only properly applies to "Grace". But God's grace in our lives produces faith and works that must go together to be true, because they are 2 sides of the same coin.
Blessings,
You too.
Gilbert, hi. Thanks for dropping by, and for the moral support! Good point!
Come by more often! :D
The next replies I'm going to make will be to Loren's two recent posts. But that won't be tonight.
For the record, the posts are:
Well, I have to admire your pluck. You’re doing your best! But it still comes to this. The things that Catholicism teaches on Mary are not taught in the Bible, and when we come up with information that is, it seems to get poo-pooed or explained away. Maryology is simply part of a tradition which Catholicism hopes will be viewed as harmless, but instead it brings up some worrisome implications that perhaps were not anticipated. As a result, your brave and generous apologetic, though I do not doubt your sincerity, sounds like damage control.
When someone’s beliefs are challenged they will naturally feel defensive, which is very understandable. The problem is that, in the short run, it can lead them to compromise. Any answer they hear, even a bad one, is still an answer, and it tells them, ‘My church has heard this question before; they have considered it; they still feel as if they’re on solid ground’, and so most people are willing to leave it at that rather than pressing their luck and finding out something they don’t want to hear.
I understand that will be the outcome for now, but I also know that the Lord is the real Teacher, and He is gently tenacious (Matt 23:8-10; 2 Pet 3:9). In quiet moments and in His own ways, He will bring this conversation back to those who participated, or even those who observed, and speak to them in their hearts. My only regret is that Mary became the focus rather than Jesus, except in the ways her role (by the standards of Catholicism), have eclipsed Jesus. But that also means that this challenge can be resolved in the Lord’s favor for the one who is brave enough to draw closer to Him. My wife actually did that, by the way. She converted from Catholicism.
Gregory, if you could approach Jesus yourself, without Mary or a priest or a saint or any other mediator – would you? If you knew He would definitely receive you? (John 6:37). Christianity is a constant impetus to do just this:
“Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
(Phil 3:13-14)
May the Lord bring you on a successful journey.
and
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
Since you ask, I’ll take the opportunity to clarify for the benefit of those who didn’t read our discussion on my blog. The closing of the Old Testament canon was foretold in Daniel 9:24 as a parameter, and the other end of that parameter would be fulfilled with the baptism of Jesus:
"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.
(Dan 9:24)
I think anyone can see that for the prophecy of Christ to play a truly valid role, it had to be established and settled well in advance, long before He came. God foretold the closing of the Old Testament canon in Daniel 9:24, and this shows me His hand in guiding it. If we argue that a later counsel ‘amended the error’, you must show me God foretelling that as well, and as a result claim that the ‘real’ Messiah has not yet come. Ouch! And the changes that Catholicism has advocated all have to do with the Old Testament. Ouch again!
However, there is no similar prophecy about the New Testament canon. The criteria we discussed on my blog was based on that, and in theory I would have no problem at all in re-examining those, or any ‘new’ ancient texts that ever surfaced.
For the record, before I reply, I just want to make the comment that the first of these two comments was borderline uncharitable and offensive, especially where you question my relationship with Christ.
But maybe it will look more charitable and less offensive to me at a time that's not 3:30 AM...
G'night everybody. May God abundantly bless you all.
Hi Gregory,
I assure you I meant no offense in the remarks above. Hopefully it was just a 3:30 thing. Actually, I think we have a pretty open and friendly relationship going, which I value highly.
I also did not mean to question your relationship with Christ. I had actually modeled that remark after an earler, mutual comment on my own blog (a comment in which I spoke both of you and of mnyself) so it was meant to apply to both of us and to everyone else as well. Like a general exhortation. Maybe it was my own middle-of-the-nighter and I didn't speak as clearly as I thought, in which case I profoundly apologize. No offense intended. Peace.
The things that Catholicism teaches on Mary are not taught in the Bible, and when we come up with information that is, it seems to get poo-pooed or explained away. Maryology is simply part of a tradition which Catholicism hopes will be viewed as harmless, but instead it brings up some worrisome implications that perhaps were not anticipated. As a result, your brave and generous apologetic, though I do not doubt your sincerity, sounds like damage control.
This was my view exactly as I approached the Catholic church. I was raised to believe she could only be an idol. Nothing positive could ever come from her. Yet the church was defining Marian dogmas which I could defend but I didn't really understand why these particular beliefs were so important. Why demand all Catholics believe in her assumption or her perpetual virginity? Is it really such a big deal if I didn't? Yet the church gave me no choice.
I have to say I am still getting there. It seems like many new Catholics are that way. Mary is the last and hardest thing to accept. I would also suggest she is one of the main ways becoming Catholic draws you closer to Christ. It isn't a particular theology or anything you can explain easily. Still developing a Marian devotion in my own life has caused my walk with God to take a quantum leap forward. When I look at Mary then my pride, my lust, and my greed all seem to feel like such a burden. These are things I had struggled with for years as a protestant and a new Catholic. I had prayed about them many times and never had a breakthrough like what I experienced when I started to pray the rosary.
Some of it I am sure had to do with obedience. Giving up the last major area where I felt I knew it better than the church. God's wisdom is foolish to men. Still I felt that my intellect would be important in a few areas. This proved to me it really isn't. I just needed to humbly obey even when I was sure God was crazy.
So Mary is part of the tradition of the Catholic church. That is because many people over the centuries have had experiences like mine. Why is it not as clearly in scripture as some expect? It is something that didn't become obvious until Mary was assumed into heaven. Most of the new testament was written before that. There are some hints but you can't expect a developed doctrine around events that unfolded later. That isn't a problem until people started to reject all God's revelation outside of scripture. Of course you are going to miss out on some major truths. You talk about dangerous. Dangerous is telling God how He has to reveal things or you just won't accept them. Even saying the church He set up is teaching hard truths so we set up something easier for us to accept. That is dangerous.
I have respect for your experience, but as I'm sure you know experience is not the guide of our faith. Consider Peter, who saw the Lord transfigured, which was a majestic experience! But even though he knew what he saw, he basically said "If you could show me that it was not Scriptural, I would yield to the Scriptures over my experience." (2 Peter 1:16-20).
In all of this, no one would try to tell him that his experience wasn't genuine, just that it may not have meant what he thought. (Actually, I think this is a helpful understanding for Catholics and Protestants alike).
On the other hand, Paul tells us that: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(2 Tim 3:16-17)
This tells us that the Scriptures are completly sufficient, so there should never be a question that we can't take back to God's word for some basic guidance; yes, enough to thoroughly equip us for each task. This is the standard to which God holds Himself, in having written the Scriptures and I have always found it to be true.
Actually, I have no problem hearing out 'new revelation' as long as it agrees with what has already been revealed. This could be as simple as listening to a sermon and hearing what the pastor or priest has to say, and proving it against the Scriptures as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). In fact, this was the necessary step that led to their believing those things (v 12). They were called 'noble minded' for doing this because God, not man, is the one to whom we owe an account; and in order to please Him, they decided to see what He had to say about it (1 Pet 4:5).
At the bottom of this whole, broader question is the consistency of God's own Divine nature. God will never contradict Himself, so neither will His revelations, in or out of the Bible. This offers us assurance and stability as well, though we must be prepared to trust Him and yield to His word (Prov 28:26).
Randy! Nice to see you around again! I appreciate your comments!
I think you're absolutely right about Mary being the last hurdle to most converts to Catholicism. She was certainly mine as well, as I mentioned above.
Thanks for sharing your personal "testimony" as well.
Loren, I'm a bit confused by your response to Randy. You taught in your modules on evangelism that a personal testimony should come as a defense after the rational and scriptural reasons for belief have been challenged.
We provided both of those qualities above, repeatedly. You didn't believe, and continued to challenge those very beliefs (to the point of "inadvertently" impugning my relationship with Christ). In return, Randy gave his testimony of the strengthening of his relationship with Christ and his progress toward holiness that came through his devotion to Mary, and you reply by saying that "experience isn't our basis for determining truth."
Well, I've really got to know, if the Church of the Living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)--which gave us the Scriptures--isn't our basis for determining truth, and the experience of the presence of God in our lives isn't the basis for determining truth (or, for that matter, the combination of both), then what, pray tell, is?
And please, whatever you do, don't say "Scripture", because we both interpret Scripture very differently on what seem to be pretty clear-cut issues (Matthew 16:16, John 6, and 1 Peter 3:20-21 spring to mind immediately). And moreover, you cannot divorce the Scriptures from the Church who gave them to us!
And please, don't say "The clear testimony of Jesus Christ," because I have demonstrated that Marian dogma reflects directly on the person and nature of Jesus--and again, without the authoritative, binding teaching of the Church, we wouldn't even know what is the orthodox teaching about Christ even is! If the Church hadn't been infallibly, bindingly, and authoritatively led by the Holy Spirit, we would all believe that Jesus Christ wasn't truly God (Arianism), or wasn't truly Man (Gnosticism), or that He didn't actually save us from our sins, but gave us an example so we could work off our sins and attain our own salvation (Pelagianism), or a host of other Christological heresies that have sprung up in every generation since the beginning of the Church, and the Church has in every case beat them down by infallibly declaring the truth of the matter!
Is the orthodox Christological teaching Scriptural? Of course! Is it clearly laid out in Scripture, so that anyone reading it would automatically come to the conclusions about Christ as laid out in the Nicaean Creed? Not necessarily. Not considering it took nearly 300 years for Christianity to figure it out! Not considering that Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al. would use the Scriptures to teach their heresies, just as Jesus-Only Pentecostals and other groups use the Bible to put forth their errors.
Is all Scripture useful so that a man may be thoroughly equipped? Yes! (2 Timothy 3:16)
Can those same Scriptures be twisted to the destruction of souls? Yes! (2 Peter 3:16)
Thus, can Scripture alone be enough to thoroughly equip a person in the faith, or is an authoritative interpreter of those Scriptures necessary? I would think that the answer is obvious.
Such an authority does exist. The Bible describes it as the pillar and the foundation of the truth, and says that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.
It is the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, given authority by Christ to teach in His Name, and commissioned by Him to spread His Gospel to all people.
To quote David (Mark 1:17), "Sorry if the above sounds forceful, but I'm rather passionate about this."
God bless.
As I said, I wanted to reply to two posts of Loren's above, in detail. So here we go with post 1:
Well, I have to admire your pluck. You’re doing your best!
Well, thank you. Maybe it's the emotionless medium of words on a screen, but your admiration comes off as a little bit condescending.
But it still comes to this. The things that Catholicism teaches on Mary are not taught in the Bible,
Not explicitly, but as I pointed out above, neither is Sola Scriptura--the necessity that all Christian doctrine must be taught in the Bible. But I have successfully (I think, or at least so far it has not been refuted) demonstrated that Scripture at least teaches these doctrines implicitly.
and when we come up with information that is, it seems to get poo-pooed or explained away.
I would call it "reinterpreted" rather than "poo-pooed", but maybe I'm just biased that way. Whatever the case, your dismissal of my explanations as "poo-pooing" is not actually interacting with my arguments, much less refuting them. That they can be given an alternative interpretation or explanation (and that said alternative has been the accepted interpretation of the Church for nearly 1500 years up to the Reformation--and beyond, in the Catholic Church) seems to indicate that maybe your "Scriptural proofs" aren't nearly as airtight as you seem to think.
Maryology [sic, it's "Mariology"] is simply part of a tradition which Catholicism hopes will be viewed as harmless,
I'm not sure "harmless" is the word I'd use. Marian doctrines are not "neutral", take-them-or-leave-them, they-won't-help-but-they-won't-harm-either traditions in the Church, like some benign tumour. As Randy has demonstrated, those Christians with the strongest devotion to Mary have been the greatest examples of Christ-likeness that the world has seen (perhaps I hyperbolise, but I doubt it, if you actually study the lives of St. Maximillian Kolbe, Bl. Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul the Great, and others).
but instead it brings up some worrisome implications that perhaps were not anticipated.
I'm sorry, such as....?
As a result, your brave and generous apologetic, though I do not doubt your sincerity,
Thanks...
sounds like damage control.
I guess that depends on where you see the damage. Abuses happen, but that does not mean we throw out the good with the bad. Consider the charismatic churches. Often they can become hyper-emotional, sometimes even doctrinally unsound (Name-it-and-claim-it; Jesus-Only Pentecostals; Snake-Handlers, to name a few). The fact that a common mantra in many sound Pentecostal churches is "Seek the giver, not the gift", shows us the tendency to exult in the miraculous phenomena attributed to the working of the Holy Spirit, rather than on the Holy Spirit Himself (and here, we're talking about God, not the saints or even Mary!). So what's the solution? Eschew the miraculous signs in order to correct the abuses and see God more clearly? That's absurd! The abuses are corrected not by throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath-water, but by sound instruction in the right use of the abused things.
If Marian devotion leads one away from Christ, there is something seriously wrong with the devotee's understanding. Should we reject Marian devotion? That's absurd! We see the good that it has wrought in the lives of many many saints. Rather, we must seek to educate and instruct the devotee to more fully understand the meaning, purpose, and correct practice of the devotion so that through Mary's help he may come to know Christ in a greater way!
If this is damage control, then so is all of Christian teachings in some form or another. I would be quick to point out (and maybe you agree) that Pulpit of the Last Days is equally damage control. So if that's a fault here, why is it not, there?
When someone’s beliefs are challenged they will naturally feel defensive, which is very understandable.
To whom are you referring, me, or yourself?
The problem is that, in the short run, it can lead them to compromise.
If you're referring to me, I fail to see how this line of reasoning is applicable...
Any answer they hear, even a bad one, is still an answer,
Not when you're the guy on the outside, struggling to see the truth, and fighting against the answers tooth and nail to test the truth of them. I was there, for three years, up until April 10th, 2004 (Even then, I still had some qualms, especially about Mary--but I felt I had to be obedient to God's Call, and He would work it out).
and it tells them, ‘My church has heard this question before; they have considered it; they still feel as if they’re on solid ground’,
When I originally looked at these questions, you're right. I did feel that way. But a bad answer is still a bad answer, and my church, Pentecostal at the time, was giving some pretty paper-thin ones. So, seeking meatier substance, I examined upwards of 40 denominations (and trust me, as an anti-traditional-anything-Pentecostal, Catholicism was the very last place I looked) until the little bits I learned indirectly about Catholic history, doctrine, and spirituality hit me square in the eyes with their ring of truth, and I began to go deeper!
and so most people are willing to leave it at that rather than pressing their luck and finding out something they don’t want to hear.
That's a shame for most people. I believe that would be the "Deadly Sin" of Sloth (but that's right, I've neglected to post that Youth Group talk since I've been caught up so completely in this discussion. I'll have to remedy that tomorrow!). No wonder it's called a "deadly" sin!
I understand that will be the outcome for now,
Pity...
but I also know that the Lord is the real Teacher, and He is gently tenacious (Matt 23:8-10; 2 Pet 3:9).
Amen!
In quiet moments and in His own ways, He will bring this conversation back to those who participated, or even those who observed, and speak to them in their hearts.
That's my prayer for all of this--especially in those times when it has gotten frustrating or overwhelming.
My only regret is that Mary became the focus rather than Jesus,
LOL, you brought her up!
except in the ways her role (by the standards of Catholicism), have eclipsed Jesus.
As I ranted about above when I talked about "abuses", any time Mary "eclipses" Jesus in the life of a Catholic, it is due to an abuse on their part, and not to Mary, the Church, or its teachings.
After all, Mary herself teaches us to come to Christ for our salvation and sanctification (John 2:5). When she appeared to the children in Fatima, Portugal, one of the things she told them (and perhaps the most enduring thing) was to pray this prayer as a part of their Rosaries: "Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of Hell; and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy. Amen."
But that also means that this challenge can be resolved in the Lord’s favor for the one who is brave enough to draw closer to Him.
This is why a proper understanding and a correction of abuses is important--no matter what the doctrine is, Catholic or Protestant.
My wife actually did that, by the way. She converted from Catholicism.
You'll have to understand if I fail to resonate with that statement.
Gregory, if you could approach Jesus yourself, without Mary or a priest or a saint or any other mediator – would you?
Absolutely. I have all my life, and nothing has changed that.
If you knew He would definitely receive you? (John 6:37).
I answered directly above, so that I could not be accused of "evading" the question with a defensive non-answer (maybe I watch too much Law & Order), but your line of questioning is rather offensive. You seem to imply, whether it is your intention or not, that I do not go directly to Christ, and that I do not know that He would receive me if I did.
I would hope that from reading the talks I've given the Youth Ministry, posted here on this blog, would demonstrate that my answer is a resounding affirmative to both your questions (Case in point, the very first post on this blog, "Wayward Hearts", is a retelling of the Prodigal Son, encouraging the reader to come running to the open arms of Christ [as well as providing the source for the Blog's name]).
Christianity is a constant impetus to do just this:
“Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
(Phil 3:13-14)
Absolutely! And encouraged and supported by our fellow Christians, both here on earth and cheering in Heaven (Hebrews 12:1), we make our way with the strength that comes from the Grace of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:9)!
May the Lord bring you on a successful journey.
You as well.
Finished and posted the 'information' piece on the differences between the Catholic and Protestant Canons.
It is here: What is the difference?
It is probably not what is expected but it is what was written...
Blessings,
A Confession, A Conviction, and a Resignation;
Gregory,
I spent the greater part of last week preparing an ‘apologetic’ of the question I asked you, “Why apply to (dead) Saints on behalf of the living?”
The entire time I was working on it, and since then, two verses kept running through my head. The first was one that has been used here repeatedly, John 2:5, “His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.””
The second was 1 Corinthians 10:31, “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.”
Then I was reading over at Pulpit of the Last Days, “The Presumption Syndrome”.
It struck me like a thunderbolt that I was guilty. ‘I’ was ‘preparing’ to do battle with you about dead Saints. But, ‘I’ was doing it for ‘my’ glory, so that ‘I’ could prove something. So that ‘I’ could convince you, ‘I’ was right. What pride and arrogance. ‘I’ was not doing it for the “glory of God”. I can do Nothing. The only ‘One’ that can do any convincing is Him!
It was a sobering conviction...
I realize these facts:
You believe in the Absolute Authority, Infallibility, and Interpretation of the Scriptures by the Catholic Church supersedes the Scriptures themselves, as is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church…
I believe the Scriptures supersede the doctrine of ANY church and: sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia, solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria
Unless something changes, we’re both going to die believing what we believe…
Proverbs 21:1, “Like a stream is the king’s heart in the hand of the LORD; wherever it pleases Him, He directs it.”
While no king, I do pray that we are both open to His direction, and that He will direct the ‘stream’ of our hearts…
That leads to the inescapable conclusion that ‘I’ am to be in service elsewhere, that this diversion has been just that, a diversion…
To that end, I am withdrawing from the ‘spirited’ debate here, though I will stop by occasionally, it won’t be for ‘engagement’ but enlightenment.
It is strange, Gregory;
I see your heart, shining like a bright light on the top of a hill…
Obscured by fog…
Whether that fog is my disbelief in the Church or your belief in the Church - only He knows, and if we are willing to listen, He will tell us.
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints. Amen”
As I said, I wanted to reply to two posts of Loren's above, in detail. So here we go with post 2:
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
Since you ask, I’ll take the opportunity to clarify for the benefit of those who didn’t read our discussion on my blog. The closing of the Old Testament canon was foretold in Daniel 9:24 as a parameter, and the other end of that parameter would be fulfilled with the baptism of Jesus:
"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.
(Dan 9:24)
I must admit, that is the first time I have ever heard that prophecy interpreted in terms of the Canon of Scripture, and I've read the classical interpretation through to the Dispensationalist interpretation. Please enlighten us, from whom did you recieve your interpretation?
For the record, the dispensationalist interpretation is this:
"The time frame of the seventy weeks, or "seventy sevens of years" is associated with Daniel's people, the Jews, and the holy city, Jerusalem. The fact that the weeks of years (490 years) are 360-day years is established by a comparison of 7:25 with Rev. 11:2,3; 12:6, 14; and 13:5. The weeks of years began with the commandment by Artaxerxes in 445 BC to restore Jerusalem. Chronologically, they are divided as:
"Seven sevens---49 years--445-396 BC (from Artaxerxes' decree to the arrival of Nehemiah and the covenant renewal celebration at Jerusalem)
"Sixty-two sevens---434 years--396 BC to AD 32 (from the dedication of the second temple to the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ)
"One seven---7 years--Unfulfilled.
National Israel will enter into a covenant with the future little horn, the Roman prince (7:8, 11:36) or Antichrist for seven years (Daniel's final or Seventieth Week). In the middle of the week, the Antichrist will break the covenant and demand that the blood sacrifices, restored by Israel in the last days, must cease. He will then set up his image in the Jewish temple and require worship (Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess 2:3,4)."
Regarding the sealing up of prophecy, Matthew Henry (no lover of the Catholic Church), who follows this schema more or less, says, "He [that is, Christ] came to seal up the vision and the prophecy, all the prophetical visions of the Old Testament, which had reference to the Messiah. He sealed them up, that is, He accomplished them."
Thus, according to a dispensationalist schema, the sealing of prophecy comes as a final parameter, not an inaugural one.
On the other hand, the Classical Interpretation (meaning the one held by the majority of Church History up until the advent of dispensationalism (18th century), is such:
"The classical approach to 9:24-27 differs, seeing such numerical computation as arbitrary. It views the 490 as representing not a literal period but a lifetime punishment seven times over (Jer 25:11; Lev 26:28). In other words, to this viewpoint, in some form or other Israel's desolation will last for centuries, the postexilic return not marking that end; but an end will come.
"This view also confines this prophecy to the second century BC, that time when Jerusalem would suffer greatly at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes ("one who makes desolate"). His "abominations" included setting up a heathen altar in the temple, the time of the "cutting off" of Onias III, God's anointed high priest of that time ("Messiah" [vv 25, 26], which can be translated "anointed one," is thus seen by the classical school as not necessarily referring to Christ but to the high priest.) The prophesied consummation is interpreted as Antiochus' overthrow at the time of the Maccabean revolt.
"The classical approach does not, however, rule out antitype fulfilment of the broader principles in Jesus Christ, in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, nor in the last days' rampages of the Antichrist. Daniel's language is clearly eschatological at points, denoting a multilevel prophetic fulfilment."
(Except the quotation from Matthew Henry, taken from his Commentary in One Volume, the interpretive schemas come from "The Spirit-Filled Life Bible--NKJV", with footnotes by Jack W. Hayford and others.)
Another take on the Classical interpretation, by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, found in the New American Bible, is as follows:
"Seventy weeks: i.e., of years. Just as Jeremiah's seventy years was an approximation, the four hundred and ninety years here is not to be taken literally. Similarly, the distribution of the 'weeks' in the following verses indicate only relative proportions of the total figure. A most holy: an expression used almost always of an object, the altar or the temple, but once (1 Chr 23:13) of Aaron the high priest. The author sees the definitive establishment of the kingdom of God, realised in the reconsecration of the temple after Antiochus' desecration, or personified in the holy community (like the Son of Man of chapter 7). The Fathers of the church almost unanimously understood the reference to be to Christ, the final realisation of the prophecy."
The translators of the NAB seem to agree with Matthew Henry's interpretation of "sealing up the vision and prophecy". They translate it thus:
"Seventy weeks are decreed
for your people and for your holy city:
Then transgression will stop and sin will end,
guilt will be expiated,
Everlasting justice will be introduced,
vision and prophecy ratified,
and a most holy will be anointed." Claiming this to be a prophecy of the closing of the Jewish canon seems to me to be a rather novel interpretation. And when, in the timeline, would this happen? If Malachi was indeed the last canonical book, and it was written 450 BC, then that's 7 or 8 years too late for your prophetic timeline (unless, like Hayford, you claim the seventieth week is unfulfilled).
But even if it is saying that vision and prophecy will cease for those 483 years until Christ is crucified, that does not necessarily equate to a closed canon. After all, in 1 Maccabees, the heroes lament the lack of a prophet. The letter of Baruch might have actually been written at the same time as Jeremiah, but only transmitted to us in Greek. OT Scripture isn't all prophecy nor written by prophets (Ruth, Esther, Judges, spring immediately to mind, among others). And finally, this schema would exclude John the Baptist from being a true prophetic voice, since he died even before Christ was crucified--and Christ called him a prophet!
In all, I have to disagree with your interpretation. Personally, I favour the classical interpretation as described above, though the dispensationalist one is convincing as well. I see no reason why they must be mutually exclusive, based on the "telescoping" nature of prophecy (for instance, Isaiah 7:14 being immediately fulfilled in Hezekiah, but ultimately fulfilled in Christ).
I think anyone can see that for the prophecy of Christ to play a truly valid role, it had to be established and settled well in advance, long before He came.
Of course...
God foretold the closing of the Old Testament canon in Daniel 9:24,
Not all that clear to me (or any interpreter that I've ever read).
and this shows me His hand in guiding it.
Well, I sincerely hope it's not the only evidence you have of His guidance, because it seems rather weak to me...
If we argue that a later counsel ‘amended the error’,
I'm not sure what "error" you're referring to. The deutero-canonicals were accepted as Scripture until the Jewish Council of Jamnia declared them not canonical in AD 90 (around the time that John was writing his Gospel--division and persecution by the Jews was fierce, and they often turned Christians over to the Romans during the persecutions of Vespasian and Domitian. This accounts for John's seemingly harsh polemic against them throughout his Gospel). Notably, one major reason that the D-Cs were rejected is that the Christians used them and converted many Jews by them.
So do we trust the decision of a Jewish council that rejected Christ, or the Councils held by the Church that He established, to determine the books of our Bible?
you must show me God foretelling that as well,
Christ granting His Church the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, coupled with the biblical accounts of the Apostles exercising that binding and loosing prerogative to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26), and to decide what was necessary for Gentile converts (Acts 15) should hopefully be sufficient for that.
and as a result claim that the ‘real’ Messiah has not yet come. Ouch!
Faulty premise reaching a faulty conclusion? I don't see how this follows at all!
And the changes that Catholicism has advocated all have to do with the Old Testament. Ouch again!
What changes to the Old Testament has Catholicism "advocated"? They "infallibly declared" that the Old Testament consists of 46 books at the Council of Trent, after holding unswervingly to that number for 1500-odd years until Martin Luther made it an issue that needed a Dogmatic declaration.
However, there is no similar prophecy about the New Testament canon.
I still fail to see the prophecy in the OT! But again, the authority given by Christ to the Church to bind and loose should suffice.
The criteria we discussed on my blog was based on that, and in theory I would have no problem at all in re-examining those, or any ‘new’ ancient texts that ever surfaced.
By that I take you to mean that while the Old Testament Canon is irrevocably closed at 39 books (rather than the historical Christian number of 46), the New Testament Canon is in fact not closed?!
Are you saying then that Luther could have been right had he removed James and Revelation from the Protestant canon? Are you saying that if we found and authenticated, for eg. Paul's letter to the Laodicaeans, or his third letter to the Corinthians, that you would induct them into Scripture (provided they lined up with your understanding of what the rest of Scripture teaches)?!
I think Randy said it best, above: Your position is very dangerous!
Slave:
A challenging and convicting post as always. I appreciate your charity and words of wisdom.
In my zeal to defend my faith, I honestly have not taken much stock of my motives. I know my original intent was to glorify Christ by showing His working in His Church. I know I picked this location so that my youth group might be able to read and learn from it the foundation of their own faith (and many have, praise God!).
But as I read your words, I feel a niggling conviction that part of my motive may have been just to pick a fight. I love to debate and to be challenged in my faith in order to strengthen it. But that should not be the end I seek in such a discussion as this. If it has risen to the fore, I do sincerely repent of that, and hope that God will use my ramblings and yours, Mark 1:17's, Loren's, and all the other contributors' posts to edify, educate and challenge readers of this discussion.
Lord, grant me a pure motive in pursuing this exciting and enlightening dialogue! Amen.
One thing I would clarify, however, before you disappear altogether. You wrote:
"You believe in the Absolute Authority, Infallibility, and Interpretation of the Scriptures by the Catholic Church supersedes the Scriptures themselves, as is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church…"
But this is neither what I believe nor is it the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Rather, I believe that the authoritative teaching body of the Church, the Scriptures, and their proper interpretation--Sacred Tradition, are three legs of a stool. Lenghten one, and the stool becomes unstable. Remove one, and it falls over.
I don't believe that the interpretation of Scripture supercedes the Scripture itself (this is illogical--can an interpretation supercede the thing it seeks to explain?). Rather, the full authority and glory of Scripture can only be realised as it is interpreted correctly by the Church as it is guided by the Spirit to do just that!
Sola Ecclesia or Sola Traditio are just as erroneous as Sola Scriptura.
Again, thanks for your wonderful participation. I'll check out "What's the Difference?" when I have time, and perhaps comment (I trust in the same spirit of charity that you yourself have demonstrated here!).
Loren, for the record, I forgot to mention it when I was replying to Post 1 above, but I also value your friendly contributions here, and the friendship we have begun to develop (even if it sometimes feels like that forged between Westley and Inigo as they duelled on top of the Cliffs of Insanity in The Princess Bride! LOL
God bless everyone who has contributed or read this outlandishly long-winded debate, and may He grant a special portion of His grace to those who have endured my own particular contributions! :D
I have respect for your experience, but as I'm sure you know experience is not the guide of our faith. Consider Peter, who saw the Lord transfigured, which was a majestic experience! But even though he knew what he saw, he basically said "If you could show me that it was not Scriptural, I would yield to the Scriptures over my experience." (2 Peter 1:16-20).
In all of this, no one would try to tell him that his experience wasn't genuine, just that it may not have meant what he thought. (Actually, I think this is a helpful understanding for Catholics and Protestants alike).
Very strange interpetation of this verse. Peter's experience on the mountain is in scripture so how can it contradict scripture? Only in the way scripture can appear contradictory because God is complex and impossible for us to understand. In the same way tradition can appear to contradict but it really does not. The solution is not to deny one revelation of God for another but believe that the apparent contradiction is really the gateway to a deeper truth. Like the trinity. Catholics call these mysteries rather than contradictions.
On the other hand, Paul tells us that: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(2 Tim 3:16-17)
This tells us that the Scriptures are completly sufficient, so there should never be a question that we can't take back to God's word for some basic guidance; yes, enough to thoroughly equip us for each task. This is the standard to which God holds Himself, in having written the Scriptures and I have always found it to be true.
This tells us no such thing. It seems to say that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness would make a man complete but in the context I would say even that is weak. The main thrust is that scripture is profitable for those 4 things and those 4 things are very good.
Scripture is complete in the sense that it contains all the main doctines about the new covenant. There will not be another covenant like Penecost or Mt Sinai so we should not look for a major rewrite of God's relationship with man. Jesus will be with His church until the end of the age. That is how truth will be revealed. As development from this main source of scripture. Still we need guidance as to who's interpetation is correct. That is why tradition and the magesterium are needed. Not to contradict scripture but to clarify interpetaion when there is controversy on important points. So nobody denies that scipture is the standard. The question is do you pick whatever interpetation you want or do you let God, through His church, pick for you.
Actually, I have no problem hearing out 'new revelation' as long as it agrees with what has already been revealed. This could be as simple as listening to a sermon and hearing what the pastor or priest has to say, and proving it against the Scriptures as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). In fact, this was the necessary step that led to their believing those things (v 12). They were called 'noble minded' for doing this because God, not man, is the one to whom we owe an account; and in order to please Him, they decided to see what He had to say about it (1 Pet 4:5).
This is another topic. The Bereans were not using Sola Scriptora. The Thessalonians were doing that. Anyway, I think the kind of personal revelation you are talking about is great. We just need to get it confirmed by the church. We can go off in wrong directions especially if we are following someone who is twisting God's word. You need to find leaders you can trust. Fortunately God has ordained leadership for His church so that isn't a problem. Unless of course you want to find other leaders who teach something that is easier for you to accept.
At the bottom of this whole, broader question is the consistency of God's own Divine nature. God will never contradict Himself, so neither will His revelations, in or out of the Bible. This offers us assurance and stability as well, though we must be prepared to trust Him and yield to His word (Prov 28:26).
For me, Catholicism has involved embracing a contradiction and walking with it for a while. God will reveal an amazing truth that allows both to be true. Just trust and obey. If we get off whenever it doesn't make sense to us then we won't go very far. Have a faith like a child.
Hey Matt! Glad you've decided to stick around and keep up with all the crazy discussion going on! Good on ya!
Anyway, "blasphemy" (you did spell it right) is insulting or slandering speech directed toward God or holy things or people.
At its root, it's denying that these holy things are truly of God, but rather are somehow worthless or even evil. It can also be you making yourself out to be as important as or more important than God. So the Beatles saying that they were bigger than Jesus would count. ;)
In the Gospels, Jesus Himself was accused of blasphemy, and it was the main reason the Jewish leaders wanted Him crucified. This is because He claimed to be God Himself. Of course, if Jesus was not truly God, He would rightfully be guilty of blasphemy.
Blasphemy is condemned in the 2nd of the 10 Commandments: "You shall not take the Name of the Lord in vain."
I hope that helps. If you need more of an answer, feel free to ask!
God bless!
Since this is the 75th comment(!), and since Mary has been the predominant topic of discussion so far,
I just wanted to wish everyone a blessed day today on this, the Feast of the Assumption (August 15th)!
Hi Gregory,
It looks like I really did push your buttons with my earlier posts, and again I apologize. Since passions seem to be running high, I want to state very calmly that my own words, here, are intended to be dispassionate, lest someone (understandably) read their own passion into them. But I also want to be open and honest.
I see your point in the things over which you fault me. But quite honestly Gregory, I learned them from you. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but here are some examples.
On Pulpit of the Last Days, I wrote a series of articles on baptism. After all that work you simply remarked to David (slave), ‘Loren’s explanation doesn’t wash’. No explanation, just a dismissal. I said to myself, “I have given facts; Gregory has issued a sweeping opinion. Fair minded people will still value the facts and not be swayed by that.” But then I began to realize that yes, people are pretty gullible and just might be swayed after all. Perhaps that thought of mine was too noble.
As another example, on this blog, I quoted the prophecy about Jesus and Mary, from, Psalm 69. Any fair minded person would examine the context of that psalm and clearly see that it is a prophecy of the passion. They would match the points to the fulfillment quite easily. They would see the prophecy of Jesus’ mother and readily see yet another match, in a long series of matches, and make the natural connection. But you simply respond, ‘using prophecy to make the point is somewhat weak’ and again the Scriptures were poo-pooed. I am not going to be unfair and say that you do such things always, but you have done it often. And Randy has done similar things.
On Pulpit of the Last Days, you remarked several times that you are a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism. This contains a subtle downplay/endorsement of positions, but I never said anything about it. Yet when I mentioned that my wife had the opposite experience, you were condescending toward her. That was somewhat uncharitable of you.
My wife grew up as what she would call a ‘perfunctory’ Catholic, but she was always fascinated by the story of the tongues, which was read every Pentecost. She had heard of Charismatic catholic churches that still do this, but she had never seen one. But when she came to Chicago she visited a Protestant church where they spoke in tongues. In her own, child-like faith she concluded: “Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons. He has made no difference between us and them, pouring out the gift of His Spirit on them as well as us, for everyone who works righteousness is accepted by Him,” and she also concluded that He was drawing her to this body of believers. And there, for the first time, she would start to grow. I don’t offer this to negate anyone else’s opinion or experience, but only to say let’s be fair with such things.
For example, we had a discussion on POLD about the term ‘Catholic’. You claimed it was a fair title for Catholicism because the only other groups were minor, heretical groups. You labeled them heretical, even though I had specifically mentioned the ana-baptists (precursors of the Baptist church of today), who could also establish a continuous presence from the days of the apostles. Another sweeping statement, which condemned all others. This was not very charitable either. What would you respond if they made the same, blanket claim about Catholicism without giving reasons?
As another example, you have resorted several times to the sweeping argument of 1500 years of church tradition. But quite honestly, that’s a self-defeating claim. The church was established 2,000 years ago, so what about the other 500 years? The New Testament was established 2,000 years ago also, and the Messianic prophecy before that. This is the strong, unbroken word, straight from the apostles, that we should base our understanding upon, rather than the other (2 Pet 1:19).
In fact, in another way, the 1500 years claim intrigues me. Many years ago I learned, from a secular historical source, that the ‘apostolic succession’ was never taught in the church for the first few centuries. It came when a document surfaced hundreds of years later, in which the writer claimed there was a succession that began with Peter, and gave a list of the successors up to the (then) present time. So it had been written very recently.
This is staking quite a lot on such a late claim. It would be like me finding a document today that said Martin Luther should have been the pope, but he was robbed; and here’s the secret succession that leads to my own pastor, 500 years later. What a howl of protests there would be! But if we persisted in this opinion for the next 1500 years, would that make it a fact?
I searched all morning for the name of the person who wrote that apostolic succession document, because I think I should document this claim. I do remember that it was the same person who first penned the Quo Vadis Legend. His fascination with Peter is evident through both stories, but his very dubious understanding of the Lord, in the second story, is shocking:
If you recall the story, Peter is fleeing Rome to escape martyrdom, and meets Jesus walking back in. Lord, where are you going? To be re-crucified, since you are not willing. I say this legend is shocking because it touches the very core of our faith: First, Jesus will never be re-crucified for anyone (Heb 6:4-6); and second, our salvation did not begin with the martyrdom of Jesus and find some form of completion in Peter (Gal 3:3).
Another legend states that Peter was crucified head-downward because he did not feel it right to have his death equated with the Lord’s. So those traditions contradict. But please excuse me, I’ve gotten on a tangent. (But I’ll come back with that person’s name soon, I know where to find it).
In almost every argument I’ve made, I’ve tried to give Scriptures. I see, on the other hand, that when I am the one speaking in too sweeping a manner, it raises some passions. But Gregory, we’re all human on this side too, and you have to understand that it works both ways. You have to be more sensitive about this as well.
Earlier I was challenged to name a source who would verify the interpretation of Daniel 9:24. But if I did that, you would only say you disagree with them – like you did earlier to David (slave): “what makes him a “trusted author?” – another sweeping statement (maybe from both of you). So instead, I claim the Scriptures are self-interpreting (which you also dismissed with a sweeping statement on POLD).
The argument that I gave in regard to the cannon is perfectly self-evident. We have to know what is considered prophetic before the prophecy comes to pass, or our claims of ‘fulfillment’ become self-serving revisionism: “If we can’t find something to justify our belief, let’s add something that does, antedate it, and say it has always been so.” I honestly think that the only reason for not accepting my conclusion would be a subjective desire to avoid it, because one feels it puts a feather in their opponent’s cap.
If I could issue a quick word to Randy. You have said that the Scriptures seem to contradict, but I have never found this to be so. Perhaps if you named some examples Gregory or myself or someone else could help you with them. I agree that there could be a point to which we would accept things we cannot understand. But I also think God will resolve them in time. So if those contradictions persist, they probably indicate the presence of error, so it cannot be sustained continually. The issue can’t be avoided forever.
Last point. David (slave) feels that this discussion has reached an impasse. Stories like yours and my wife's tell me that is not necessarily true, but what do you say? It's your blog, so if you do want it to end, I'll give you the final word.
catholicism is better then protestanism 8-)
Thank you for that...anonymous. Please leave a name when you post, and please try to provide some...substance with it.
Loren, I'm going to reply to what you wrote above soon.
Hi Gregory,
It looks like I really did push your buttons with my earlier posts, and again I apologize.
You are forgiven. My buttons can get easily pushed sometimes :D
Since passions seem to be running high, I want to state very calmly that my own words, here, are intended to be dispassionate, lest someone (understandably) read their own passion into them.
As are mine.
But I also want to be open and honest.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
I see your point in the things over which you fault me. But quite honestly Gregory, I learned them from you.
I'm not sure what you mean...?
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but here are some examples.
On Pulpit of the Last Days, I wrote a series of articles on baptism.
Admittedly, to my chagrin, the only article there that I read was "Baptism: Substance or Symbolism?", since you had directed me to your table of contents after I asked where I could get a clear layout of your belief system. When I saw the "Gospel Ordinances" module, I thought, "Well, he calls the sacraments "ordinances", what else does he believe about them--particularly regarding their efficacy?" When I saw two posts specifically about their efficacy (one on baptism, one on the Eucharist), I read those, and pretty much ignored the others.
I was wondering whether, once we got past Mary in our discussion of Catholicism, we'd get to the more central issues of the sacraments. Maybe this will be the segue.
After all that work you simply remarked to David (slave), ‘Loren’s explanation doesn’t wash’. No explanation, just a dismissal.
I remember saying those words, but in the B:S or S? thread I cannot find the context. Either way, in that thread I gave a pretty thorough explanation of my views on the subject, and did not simply "dismiss" your articles.
I said to myself, “I have given facts; Gregory has issued a sweeping opinion. Fair minded people will still value the facts and not be swayed by that.”
Where I issued sweeping opinions, it was to inaugurate the discussion, not to finish it. Like a deductive essay, that begins generally and moves into specifics, I tested the waters to see if discussion was an option.
But then I began to realize that yes, people are pretty gullible and just might be swayed after all.
Possibly. But I wasn't looking to "sway" with my original posts, but to intrigue and draw into the discussion by demonstrating that there was an alternate viewpoint (and one that is grounded in history at that).
I inaugurated the discussion at all only because your description of the baptism controversy directly referenced the Roman Catholic position and misrepresented it. If you had picked on Lutherans (who also believe in baptismal regeneration, as did Martin Luther himself), I would probably have left it alone.
The very fact that you came here to begin with is the only reason I ever went to POLD. I don't recall ever having attacked or misrepresented Protestantism here (even though I disagree with it and have made mention to some of the disagreements here). When I went to your blog, I was expecting a Protestant blog, but hoping that any references to Catholicism did not involve a mischaracterisation of it. I immediately saw none. I saw a man who wanted the Churches to focus on Christ, so I offered the informational tidbit that the Catholic Church does so--not to spark debate, but to show you that hey! not all churches are apostate! I was hoping it would be a cheerful assurance (with maybe a bit of playful banter), but instead I got a challenge to "prove" my assertion.
Perhaps that thought of mine was too noble.
Which thought? The one where people would follow the facts, and not the opinions? I have tried to provide facts as far as I am able. I hope then that your thought wasn't "too noble".
As another example, on this blog, I quoted the prophecy about Jesus and Mary, from, Psalm 69. Any fair minded person would examine the context of that psalm and clearly see that it is a prophecy of the passion.
Before I made a reply, I did examine the context, and I did see that yes, parts of that psalm are very prophetic of the Passion. However, parts of that psalm do not fit neatly into the life of Jesus--and that is because the primary purpose of the psalm was to reflect on David's life. The Holy Spirit's inspiration caused David to speak beyond himself and about Christ, but not everything there can be considered as correlating 100% to the Gospel narrative.
When, for example, did Jesus have to "search" for God (69:3)? How does 69:5: "God, you know how foolish I am, my offences are not hidden from You," literally, prophetically apply to Christ? When did Jesus fast in the Gospels (69:10), or dress in sackcloth (v.11)? Verses 22-28 seem rather unlike Jesus' prayer, "Father, forgive them..."! Thus it is evident that this psalm, as I said, cannot be literally interpreted according to Jesus' life (and that's to say nothing of the watery, swampy descriptions). So how can you claim with 100% certainty that the references to the mother's sons is a literal reference to Mary and her alleged "other children"?
They would match the points to the fulfillment quite easily.
Parts of the psalm, yes. But I would say the majority, or at least half, of the Psalm does not neatly match up to Christ's passion--and the parts that do are not gathered together into a recognisable section, that you could say, "here, this part is definitely prophetic, even if the rest is iffy." The prophecy of Christ in Wisdom 2:12-20 is infinitely clearer than anything in Psalm 29--which indicates that perhaps prophecy had not entirely ceased, and Spirit-inspiration was not "sealed up" when you said.
How can you claim that Psalm 69 is Messianic, yet deny a passage that says:
"12 'Let us lay up traps for the upright man, since he annoys us
And opposes our way of life,
Reproaches us for our sins against the Law,
And accuses us of sins against our upbringing.
13 He claims to have knowledge of God,
And calls himself a child of the Lord.
14 We see him as a reproof to our way of thinking,
The very sight of him weighs our spirits down;
15 For his kind of life is not like other people's,
And his ways are quite different.
16 In his opinion we are counterfeit;
He avoids our ways as he would filth;
He proclaims the final end of the upright as blessed
And boasts of having God for his father.
17 Let us see if what he says is true, and test him to see what sort of end he will have.
18 For if the upright man is God's son, God will help him
And rescue him from the clutches of his enemies.
19 Let us test him with cruelty and with torture,
And thus explore this gentleness of his
And put his patience to the test.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death
Since God will rescue him--or so he claims.'"
?
They would see the prophecy of Jesus’ mother and readily see yet another match, in a long series of matches, and make the natural connection.
But it is overstepping to say that each and every line in that psalm has a literal fulfilment in Christ's life--especially since poetry as a genre isn't meant to be taken literally!
But you simply respond, ‘using prophecy to make the point is somewhat weak’ and again the Scriptures were poo-pooed.
Actually, there was much more interaction than simply that, if you'd bothered to interact with what I said about it. Now who's making general dismissals of the other's argument?
I am not going to be unfair and say that you do such things always, but you have done it often.
Thanks for being fair...
And Randy has done similar things.
Randy, being a guest here (and not someone I know--even less than I know you. We "met" at another blog) has no actual compulsion to offer thorough apologetics. He is (in my mind) more of a corroborating witness. If he wants to be more specific, I know I would welcome that, but that's up to him.
(Randy, thanks for the support you have given. I really appreciate it)
On Pulpit of the Last Days, you remarked several times that you are a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism. This contains a subtle downplay/endorsement of positions, but I never said anything about it.
But I never misrepresented one position to defend the other, or claimed that I couldn't find Jesus in Protestantism. I only claimed that I came to a fuller and better understanding of Him here in the Catholic Church.
Yet when I mentioned that my wife had the opposite experience, you were condescending toward her. That was somewhat uncharitable of you.
I felt condescended towards in that entire post. The fact that I made one statement (which, quite honestly, could have been much worse!) saying that I didn't resonate with the statement that your wife only grew closer to Christ by converting from Catholicism. The implication, which was very strong throughout that whole post, was that one cannot grow closer to Christ within Catholicism, because the Catholic system separates us from Christ.
My wife grew up as what she would call a ‘perfunctory’ Catholic,
I hate to admit that that confirmed my suspicions. One cannot blame the religion or the institution for the individial's apathetic attitude and going-through-the-motions method of practicing the faith. That she felt she had to leave Catholicism in order for her faith to come alive makes me sad, because it reveals to me that she never really understood the Catholic faith at all. How else would you expect me to take that statement?
I'm not trying to be uncharitable by saying this. Sadly, it's a problem that I've seen all too often in Catholicism (but also in Protestantism, as well--sloth is no respecter of denominations). But this is why we cannot judge the Church by its "adherents" but by its doctrines, as you yourself point out: "Experience is not the basis for truth."
On the other hand, I was an extremely devout Pentecostal. It wasn't just "perfuntory" for me. But my desire to draw closer to God, both in heart and in mind, led me to see that there were inconsistencies and an incompleteness in Pentecostalism that I saw as being resolved in Catholicism. That didn't make the conversion easier, because there was much in Catholicism that I disagreed with, and many answers that I did not like at all. But through the gentle leading of the Holy Spirit, I came to see that the fullness of the Christian faith is here.
I don't want to be in-your-face about that, or triumphalistic about it. I assured my friend Dave above that salvation can be found in Protestantism, because salvation comes from Jesus, and not His Church. But I did mention that I felt that there was more to a relationship with Christ than heaven or hell.
but she was always fascinated by the story of the tongues, which was read every Pentecost.
And has always been believed to be a part of the Church (notably, many of the mystics in the Church operated in the charismatic gifts, like, among others, the Curé d'Ars, St. Jean Vianney).
She had heard of Charismatic catholic churches that still do this, but she had never seen one.
St. Andrew's happens to be one. Fr. Coughlin, the pastor here, is the Chair of the Charismatic Catholic Renewal Services of Canada, and editor of the charismatic monthly magazine, "The Bread of Life"
But when she came to Chicago she visited a Protestant church where they spoke in tongues. In her own, child-like faith she concluded: “Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons. He has made no difference between us and them, pouring out the gift of His Spirit on them as well as us, for everyone who works righteousness is accepted by Him,” and she also concluded that He was drawing her to this body of believers.
Funny, that verse and its reasoning first led me to consider that Catholicism was indeed a true Christian religion (as opposed to the corrupted cult-like religion I'd grown up thinking it was).
As happy as I am that your wife has found a living relationship with Christ, it still admittedly saddens me that she felt she had to leave the RC Church to live it out. But then, many have expressed a similar grief over my own conversion.
And there, for the first time, she would start to grow. I don’t offer this to negate anyone else’s opinion or experience, but only to say let’s be fair with such things.
I think I have been. But I do think a similar fairness should have been extended originally, instead of the underlying suggestion that came through your above post that seemed to say Catholicism can't bring you closer to Jesus. Whether that was your intent or not is immaterial. It's the message that came through loud and clear, and not only to me. Similarly, whether or not I meant to be uncharitable in my reply is immaterial, and I apologise sincerely for coming across that way.
For example, we had a discussion on POLD about the term ‘Catholic’. You claimed it was a fair title for Catholicism because the only other groups were minor, heretical groups.
The context of this was that you said the term "Catholic" was commandeered by the "Catholic Church" in or around the year AD 400 from the other branches of Christianity in existence. I submit that there is no historical evidence for that claim, and that the only other groups that even called themselves Christian in the year 400 were heretical groups like the Arians, Pelagians, or Sabellians. If there was another orthodox group of Christians around at that time, I've never heard anything about them.
You labeled them heretical, even though I had specifically mentioned the ana-baptists (precursors of the Baptist church of today), who could also establish a continuous presence from the days of the apostles.
The ana-baptists were a group of "radical reformers" in the 15- and 1600s. The term originated then, because they believed that adult baptism was the only valid baptism and that baptised infants needed to be rebaptised ("ana" is a Greek prefix meaning "again"). The only string of affiliation with pre-reformation groups that I've ever seen them try to identify themselves with were the heretics--and that's not my position, but the position of the orthodox Church that declared them so--and examining what we know of their teachings, I'd say that was a fair description.
But if you would like to examine that more thoroughly, I am willing to discuss that issue here as well.
Notably, though, no Christian group before the anabaptists that I know of ever claimed that re-baptism was necessary or valid--and that includes Luther and Calvin, who themselves bitterly persecuted the anabaptists as heretics.
Another sweeping statement, which condemned all others.
The "sweeping statement" was made by you, claiming that the anabaptists could provide a succession from the apostles. You have the burden of proof in this matter (just as I was assigned the burden to demonstrate that Catholic teaching points to Christ--which, in the case of Mary, I have done).
This was not very charitable either.
Neither is the fact that you continue to claim that I have not interacted at length with your arguments, though I indeed have done so as time has permitted. The Daniel 9:24 prophecy is one such instance--but you would call that a "dismissal". What about the part where you have yet to interact with what I have written here on this blog? I made a post with numerous Scriptural references as to why Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture, as well as responding to the Scriptures that were put forward in defense of it.
I gave a point by point explanation of how Marian doctrines point to Jesus, with no response, as well as a point by point explanation of where they are implicated in Scripture and how they were developed, and you dismissed them by saying "Let's face it, they're not biblical." I gave a defense of why they don't have to be explicitly biblical to be doctrinal, and the reply was a reaffirmation of Sola Scriptura again without addressing the argument against it above.
So it seems to be the pot is calling the kettle black.
What would you respond if they made the same, blanket claim about Catholicism without giving reasons?
The same way that I did to the anonymous poster above, and the same way I just did above to you.
As another example, you have resorted several times to the sweeping argument of 1500 years of church tradition. But quite honestly, that’s a self-defeating claim. The church was established 2,000 years ago, so what about the other 500 years?
Uhm, 1500 years is from Pentecost circa AD 30 until the Reformation (which most historians claim began with the 95 Theses being tacked to the Wittenberg Door on October 31, 1517). Thus, the missing 500 years are the years since the Reformation since the 1500 years of Church history is ostensibly their history as well. And when I have said 1500 years of tradition I have always addended that with "which still continues in the Catholic Church today", meaning that for us, it's nearly 2000 years of unbroken tradition.
Yes, I know that's another sweeping generalisation. If you want to examine evidence for that, peruse A Biblical Defence of Catholicism, or the author's blog, Cor ad Cor Loquitur. Dave Armstrong has written extensively on these issues for over 10 years now, and has one of the most comprehensive sites dedicated to apologetics on the web.
The New Testament was established 2,000 years ago also, and the Messianic prophecy before that.
Yet the New Testament Canon (of 27 books) wasn't defined and clarified until about AD 405 (see my comment at Slave's blog on this topic).
This is the strong, unbroken word, straight from the apostles, that we should base our understanding upon, rather than the other (2 Pet 1:19).
What was that about sweeping generalisations? I posted a thorough counter-argument to Sola Scriptura above.
In fact, in another way, the 1500 years claim intrigues me. Many years ago I learned, from a secular historical source, that the ‘apostolic succession’ was never taught in the church for the first few centuries. It came when a document surfaced hundreds of years later, in which the writer claimed there was a succession that began with Peter, and gave a list of the successors up to the (then) present time. So it had been written very recently.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Lumen Gentium, states in paragraph 861:
"In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testiment, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry." [The footnote says "LG 20; cf. Acts 20:28; St. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. 42,44: PG 1, 291-300.]
Thus, according to this, St. Clement of Rome (in AD 80) taught apostolic succession. In fact, so does the Bible: Acts 1:15-26; 14:23; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; Ephesians 2:20; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-8; 4:13-14; 5:17-22; and 2 Timothy 2:1-2. Notably in 2 Timothy 2:2, St. Paul not only appoints Timothy as his successor (as bishop at Ephesus) but instructs Timothy to train up others to succeed him!
This is staking quite a lot on such a late claim.
Many many early church fathers, like St. Clement of Rome, made reference to apostolic succession (though maybe not in those words--the word Trinity was also a rather late development to stake such a large claim on!) and to the traditions that they had handed on. But based on Scripture alone, I'd say Apostolic Succession is pretty clear.
It would be like me finding a document today that said Martin Luther should have been the pope, but he was robbed;
Except that would be absolutely ridiculous on a number of levels--not least of which is the fact that he himself virulently opposed the papacy, even commissioning wood cuttings depicting the pope being born out of a demon's butt!
and here’s the secret succession that leads to my own pastor, 500 years later.
Our apostolic succession, on the other hand, is not secret at all. The fact that we can trace Peter's successors all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI (the 264th successor to Peter, to be precise) should demonstrate that. I'd have to check, but I'd guess that every bishopric could trace itself back all the way as well (The bishops are the apostolic successors, if you didn't realise that aspect of it).
What a howl of protests there would be!
Well of course! It isn't true!
But if we persisted in this opinion for the next 1500 years, would that make it a fact?
Not without historical evidence for it. That's what sets Catholicism apart from Protestantism. It values and carefully preserves its history. (As a Pentecostal growing up, for example, history was minimised to such a degree that for all I knew, St. Augustine and Martin Luther could have been next door neighbours! 1st Year of Bible College, The History of Christianity was the only course I actually had to work at, and even then, I was taught that "dates weren't all that important, so long as we know a basic chronology". That, and the history of the Church taught by an enormously biased-against-Catholicism teacher. Yet, ironically, the study of history was the first thing that really began leading me to the Catholic Church. I guess that supports John Henry Cardinal Newman's hypothesis that "to be steeped in history is to be no longer Protestant.")
I searched all morning for the name of the person who wrote that apostolic succession document, because I think I should document this claim.
Would be nice...
I do remember that it was the same person who first penned the Quo Vadis Legend.
Good story. "First penned" isn't the same as "authored", however. I believe it was St. Ambrose (who was very instrumental in the conversion of St. Augustine, one of the greatest Christian minds of all time!).
His fascination with Peter is evident through both stories,
His veneration of the head of the Apostles, whom Jesus called the Rock, to whom He commanded to feed and tend His sheep and lambs, is hardly surprising.
but his very dubious understanding of the Lord, in the second story, is shocking:
Calling St. Ambrose understanding of the Lord "dubious" is a statement of unbelievable ignorance of the life and teachings of St. Ambrose! Admittedly, you couldn't think of who penned Quo Vadis, but still, not overly forth-coming with the benefit of the doubt, are you?
If you recall the story, Peter is fleeing Rome to escape martyrdom, and meets Jesus walking back in. Lord, where are you going? To be re-crucified, since you are not willing. I say this legend is shocking because it touches the very core of our faith: First, Jesus will never be re-crucified for anyone (Heb 6:4-6);
I think your understanding of the story is as shocking as the interpretation that you give it (which, I guess, makes sense, since it's one and the same thing, isn't it?).
First, what if the story is actually true, and St. Peter did have that vision? Second, Peter having a vision of Christ carrying His Cross to Rome is no more to be taken as Jesus was literally going to Rome to be recrucified than Peter's vision of the unclean animals literally meant that Jesus wanted Peter to enjoy some bacon, eggs and ham for breakfast! The meaning of the second vision was that God has declared Gentiles to be worthy of salvation. The meaning of the former was that it was time for Peter to fulfil the death that Jesus had foretold in John 21:18-19.
and second, our salvation did not begin with the martyrdom of Jesus and find some form of completion in Peter (Gal 3:3).
No, but according to St. John, Jesus was glorified, and glorified the Father, through His death on the cross (John 12:20-33). Likewise, Jesus predicted the death by which Peter would glorify God (the Father, and the Son--John 21:19).
Another legend states that Peter was crucified head-downward because he did not feel it right to have his death equated with the Lord’s. So those traditions contradict.
How so? In both cases, St. Peter was crucified by Nero head down, to give his life as a testimony to Christ for the glory of God.
But please excuse me, I’ve gotten on a tangent. (But I’ll come back with that person’s name soon, I know where to find it).
Pretty sure I got it, but you might have something else in mind. Either way, I'm not seeing the relevance, other than you expressing one other way in which you fundamentally misunderstand Catholic teaching. Sorry to put it so bluntly.
In almost every argument I’ve made, I’ve tried to give Scriptures.
And I have interacted with your Scriptural texts, read them, thought about them, researched their meaning in at least three translations, and consulted both Protestant and Catholic commentaries on them, and then providing an alternate understanding of those Scriptures. You, on the other hand, have not interacted with the Scriptural evidence that I have offered (case in point, the very argument against Sola Scriptura).
I see, on the other hand, that when I am the one speaking in too sweeping a manner, it raises some passions.
A fault on both sides, evidently.
But Gregory, we’re all human on this side too, and you have to understand that it works both ways. You have to be more sensitive about this as well.
I have tried to be, to the point of actually going through comments point by point (as I am doing now) and interacting with the arguments.
Earlier I was challenged to name a source who would verify the interpretation of Daniel 9:24. But if I did that, you would only say you disagree with them
Probably, depends on who the commentator was. But I would at least respect the interpretation more, knowing that it had its origins somewhere other than you and your own personal reading of the text. Furthermore, I gave much evidence to the contrary of your interpretation, which you did not interact with, but merely reasserted your interpretation below.
– like you did earlier to David (slave): “what makes him a “trusted author?” – another sweeping statement (maybe from both of you).
Actually, that was David (Mark 1:17), and that was because he made the claim that non-canonical books held "no sway" with him, but yet, on his blog, he quotes liberally from contemporary Christian writers, whom he referred to as "trusted authors."
So I was merely asking why John Piper (whom I agree is a trustworthy Christian author that I appreciate greatly) and Matt Redman (whose books I've never read, but whose contemporary worship music is slightly above the mediocre average of contemporary worship music) are "trusted authors" but first and second century writers were not. Thanks for paying attention, though (Sorry, I really can't resist the sarcasm).
So instead, I claim the Scriptures are self-interpreting (which you also dismissed with a sweeping statement on POLD).
Well, my "sweeping statement" was something to the effect of, "If Scriptures are so perspicuous and self-interpreting, why are there so many various interpretations, and literally 1000s of denominations based on those interpretations. Even John Calvin lamented that the disunity in Protestantism (and we're talking within the first decade) was scandalous! But it is a direct result of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and it's sidekick, the Perpescuity of Scripture (as Luther said, "even a ploughboy could understand it").
The argument that I gave in regard to the cannon is perfectly self-evident.
So much for interacting with my counter-argument. "The first to plead is adjudged to be upright, until the next comes and cross-examines him" (Proverbs 18:17).
We have to know what is considered prophetic before the prophecy comes to pass, or our claims of ‘fulfillment’ become self-serving revisionism: “If we can’t find something to justify our belief, let’s add something that does, antedate it, and say it has always been so.”
I'm not denying this. But I'm also not willing to accept an interpretation of prophecy based on your word: "At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual" (2 Peter 1:20).
I honestly think that the only reason for not accepting my conclusion would be a subjective desire to avoid it, because one feels it puts a feather in their opponent’s cap.
Or maybe it's because you're the only one I've ever heard interpret that verse in that manner, when even someone like Matthew Henry disagrees. "Vision and Prophecy" doesn't necessarily, strictly speaking, refer to Scripture or the canon. It also doesn't necessarily come at the beginning of the 70 weeks of years. Most scholars, on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide say the beginning parameter is the order to reconstruct Jerusalem by Artaxerxes (though I read some that say it began when Jeremiah prophesied that event). Most commentators put the sealing of vision and prophecy where Henry does, with the coming of Christ--and by sealing, they mean "ratifying" or "fulfilling" prophecy, not getting rid of it.
If I could issue a quick word to Randy. You have said that the Scriptures seem to contradict, but I have never found this to be so. Perhaps if you named some examples Gregory or myself or someone else could help you with them. I agree that there could be a point to which we would accept things we cannot understand. But I also think God will resolve them in time. So if those contradictions persist, they probably indicate the presence of error, so it cannot be sustained continually. The issue can’t be avoided forever.
If I may briefly answer on Randy's behalf, I don't think he meant that there are actual contradictions in Scripture, but rather, he's referring to the same thing you do when you refer to scriptural antinomies at POLD. Such things like "How can an omnipresent God limit Himself to one physical location as Jesus Christ?" "How does predestination and free will coexist?" "How do grace and works cooperate in our justification and sanctification?" But I'll let Randy provide a fuller explanation if he deems it necessary. Suffice it to say that there are no contradictions, but just as the human mind cannot comprehend the full reality of 1 God coexisting as 3 distinct persons while remaining a single essense, there are many other paradoxes that require faith to believe even when intellect cannot conceive. These are what we call the Mysteries of the Faith.
Last point. David (slave) feels that this discussion has reached an impasse. Stories like yours and my wife's tell me that is not necessarily true, but what do you say? It's your blog, so if you do want it to end, I'll give you the final word.
A few of the youth group kids, when reading this, asked me if I was going to end it, and were releived when I said no, that I didn't want to yet.
Besides, all we've really covered at any great length is Mary, who is admittedly important to Catholics, but certainly not central. I had thought we'd at least tackle the Sacraments while we were at it--especially the Eucharist, which Pope John Paul the Great called "the source and summit of the Christian faith"!
The Eucharist, after all, and Christ's gift of Himself in it, was my #1 reason for converting!
God bless!
Loren,
I apologize if I have swept away arguments of yours. I really beleive these kinds of arguments are not that profitable. I don't think I can add a huge amount if they are. Most major theological positions have defenders who can argue their position well. Those on the opposite side also argue well. I assume we could do that if we wanted. To me the really interesting discussion happens when people get sick of arguing. Then they ask how can we know God's truth in this theological mess we have created? Is God really there? I think He is in the scripture and in the reason people are trying to apply. But He isn't in the pride, the factions and dissention, the bitter quarrels and malice. These are things scripture condemns over and over. So sometimes I just refuse to refute someone just because I don't expect that discussion to be fruitful. Not because I don't know the counter argument or think it is weak. Just because the positions are entrenched and not many people are being enlightened. I think Mary is a topic like that. People need to come near to the church for other reasons before they really begin to understand the reasons for the doctrines about Mary. Protestants generally find them insane. Just my experience as a protestant and as a Catholic talking to protestants.
As for the contradictions, I am sure you can resolve them all. It is easy to do in the sola scriptora world. You choose one and interpete away the other passages. Any good theologian can do that. I think that is a temptation we need to avoid. It limits our understanding of God to what our minds are willing to accept as logical. Often God gets reduced to a simple caricature of niceness or one of judgement.
Salvation by faith and salvation by obedience is a contradiction. Scripture seems to teach both. Luther threw works out and embraced faith alone. There is a deeper truth. Cardinal Newman said faith and obedience are really the same thing. Maybe he has a point. There are so many simple formulas for a complex mystery. None work completely. So when someone says "we are saved by faith apart from works of the law" I say "Amen". And when someone says "if you have faith that can move mountains and have not love you gain nothing" I say "Amen" to that too.
I totally agree with the idea that we can learn about God from all people. Vatican II makes a statement to the effect that if you sit and listen to anyone talk about their experience with God you will find some truth there and be blessed by that. We all aproach these encounters with way to much of an idea of how can we teach or convince people about our own ideas and not nearly enough about how can we learn from this discussion. In fact we tend to listen to find holes that we can exploit rather than listening to try and find God in what they are saying. I know I am very limited in the time I can spend blogging. I find reading a debate and making the odd comment a lot more benefical that being one of the main combatants.
Gregory,
It's been a while. I hope you are well, and that your wedding plans are coming together easily. I'm very excited for you!
My question to you is this: would you mind explaining the difference between imputed, and imparted justification? And if you get the time, perhaps you could scramble up a very brief apologetic for why Catholics interpret sola fide to mean non sola fide et gratia?
On a more personal level: why should my wife and I become Catholic? That's a serious question, by the way.
I'll visit your site more often from now on. You are doing an awesome job of making our faith a banner to the nations, Greg!
God bless you richly.
Christopher J. Freeman
Wow! I just got junked blogged! (Just above Randy's reply above--I deleted the entry, if you're wondering. No, I don't want this blog to advertise businesses, thank you.) LOL
Randy, I have really appreciated your contributions to this blog. I often can be very cerebral (and argumentative) and your personal touches have really, to me, been a balancing factor, and have touched me. Thank you for reading (and for making me not feel like the only knowledgeable Catholic here--no offence Matt!!!!! and anyone else that is reading but not commenting!)
"So sometimes I just refuse to refute someone just because I don't expect that discussion to be fruitful. Not because I don't know the counter argument or think it is weak. Just because the positions are entrenched and not many people are being enlightened. I think Mary is a topic like that. People need to come near to the church for other reasons before they really begin to understand the reasons for the doctrines about Mary. Protestants generally find them insane. Just my experience as a protestant and as a Catholic talking to protestants."
I can definitely relate to that. This discussion has beared that out, too, I think. Ultimately, that was the way it was with me, too. Before I could embrace Mary and the Saints, I had to embrace the Church, trusting that it did indeed have the authority to teach the full truth of Christian doctrine, and to do so being led infallibly by the Holy Spirit.
Only after I got my head around that notion, and embraced it there, could I begin to understand and believe those doctrines that still seemed crazy.
I remember having an interview with my priest during RCIA, and expressing the concerns about Mary and the saints that were plaguing my Protestant-formed conscience. I told him that I believed and accepted the Church's self-description, and all the other doctrines, but still could not embrace these. But, I remember equating it to the passage in Romans 14, about eating food sacrificed to idols. Then, as a weak believer, I could not pray to Mary in good conscience, and thus to do so would be sinful. But, I said, I hoped that as I grew in the faith, I would come to understand greater how her role in my life and in the Church did work.
Later, I took up the Rosary that my fiancée had made me as a gift for my Confirmation, and I prayed the Glorious Mysteries, and when I meditated on Mary's Coronation as Queen of Heaven, I prayed and asked Jesus to show me how it all fit together for His glory. And He did.
And now, I'm teaching it as a Youth Minister, and blogging about it here!
Chris! How very great to see you! (Does this mean you've updated Bona Fide since "Rant"?)
Thanks for stopping by. Did you read the articles "Spiritual Paintball" and "Rematch"? I began to fear I was turning into Aaron! LOL
The wedding plans are coming along. We've got an apartment (2 bedroom, with a tonne of closet space, that we can decorate any way we please, for $699/mo. in downtown Hamilton!) that we're currently in the process of painting (it came in monochromatic beige...I hate beige!) and when we're finished, Melissa will move in and I'll join her in October!
The priest who was supposed to celebrate our marriage, Fr. Gerard Bergie, was one of the first two Canadian priests to be appointed Bishops by the Pope. Which is awesome, he totally deserves it! He'll be a second auxiliary bishop of Hamilton (which, if you did actually convert, would be your official diocese, too ;) ). However, since he'll be ordained to the episcopacy on the 24th of August, he won't be able to be at our wedding in October (which is really sad, because he's the one who brought me into the Catholic Church!) But today, we talked to another priest, who used to help at our church, and he's willing to do it :D So all is well again.
My question to you is this: would you mind explaining the difference between imputed, and imparted justification? And if you get the time, perhaps you could scramble up a very brief apologetic for why Catholics interpret sola fide to mean non sola fide et gratia?
I will prepare an apologetic for that. You asked the question before, in the original Mary post, so it seems to be a big point for you. I don't have the resources to pull one off right now, so it will have to wait until tonight (or possibly later, depending on how heavy it gets).
When it comes to non sola fide et gratia, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that phrase. The way I understand Catholic Doctrine, "Grace", bibilically speaking, is the life of God that is given to us from God, that energises our lives and spurs on our journey to sanctification.
Our response to His grace is our faith that manifests itself in our actions. Grace comes from God, and is initially independent of our faith or our works (thus, "sola gratia". Even after our faith and works come into play, they are meritorious only because of God's grace, and not because of any inherent goodness in them or us. Our merit is itself only and always God rewarding His Grace-gift in our lives.)
Faith, on the other hand, is our response to God's grace. It, on the one hand, is a direct consequence of God's grace, but it is still our choice to make that response--which is why it is something separated from "sola gratia". However, our faith can never be separated from our works. As James clearly points out, a faith that has no expression in obedience to God is no faith at all. Mere mental assent to truths about God is not enough to save (James 2:14-26, esp. v. 17 and vs. 19).
Thus, we say that sola gratia saves, because without it, all the faith and the good deeds in the world are for naught ("Filthy rags" according to Isaiah 64:5 [v.6 in the KJV]). Yet, through Christ's grace alone, our faith and works are energised and become meritorious, as He Himself rewards us for the gifts that He has given, as St. Augustine said.
But I might have completely misunderstood your question (I'm still not up on the Latin ;) ).
On a more personal level: why should my wife and I become Catholic? That's a serious question, by the way.
I would never have assumed it wasn't, coming from you. You've never struck me as the "Why should I?" kinda guy. Unfortunately, my answers will always sound somewhat subjective, and possibly even circular. And, as you've pointed out before, my reasons for converting from a Pentecostal tradition to an historical confessional faith are by default different from what yours would need to be, since you already belong to an historical confessional faith in Lutheranism. You already believe nearly identically on at least two of the sacraments (I was going to refer to your defense of the Eucharist at Bona Fide if it ever came up here!) so my appeal to the Eucharistic presence (that was missing in Pentecostalism) won't really cut it, will it?
Because I'm a terribly flippant person, half of me wants to teasingly say, "Because your theologian-hero, Joseph Ratzinger, is our Pope!" But it was a serious question deserving a seriously heartfelt answer. He is, though, in case that sways you in the least ;)
Ultimately, three issues are at stake, and, in my mind at least, are where the answer needs to start. The first is Sola Scriptura. I know that Lutherans (and I think Calvinists) believe differently than people like Loren, Slave, and David here do. From the Lutheran people I've talked to about this, they'd call that (particularly "Mark 1:17" David's) version of Sola Scriptura, "Solo Scriptura", a corruption of what Luther and the other classical Protestants taught.
But I think the point still stands, with regard to Sola Scriptura (even an historically-minded, councils-have-authority-to-some-degree version) that it has only led to the numerous divisions within Protestantism, because the Scriptures are not self-explaining and self-interpreting (no matter what Loren claims). The practical evidence in history simply does not bear this out.
Calvin wrote to his friend Philip Melanchthon on November 28, 1552, lamenting the same result of Sola Scriptura that I describe. (Read the letter here)
This leads to the second issue, regarding who has the correct interpretation of Scripture--or, more to the point, who has the right to interpret Scripture. To which body of believers did Christ give the Keys to bind and loose? Which body of believers has consistently done that, without compromise or contradiction (though, admittedly, with developments like fleshing out Trinitarian doctrine and the like--Matthew 13:31-32)? I obviously concluded that that was true only of the Catholic Church, and not of any other branch of Christianity. But you would have to research that and conclude for yourself.
But that leads me to the final concern in the decision: The desire for the unity of all Christians. Jesus prayed, "May they all be one, just as, Father, You are in Me and I am in You, so that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe it was You who sent Me" (John 17:21).
The current disunity in Christianity (especially among Protestantism itself) is scandalous. I believe that the Catholic Church truly only has the means to enforce that unity in its Magesterium. But with the advent of Protestantism, anyone can just shop around for a different church rather than face discipline from it.
Prayer for the Unity of Christians
Almighty and eternal God,
You gather the scattered sheep
and watch over those You have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus, Your Son.
You have marked them with the seal of one baptism;
now make them one in the fulness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
God bless, Chris! Say hi to Sara and the kids! I miss you guys!
Excellent stuff Gregory....excellent.
Thanks Pedrito. I appreciate you saying so. Thanks for stopping by!
Matt, Pope Pius XII said that we must as a matter of faith believe in an original pair of humans (Adam and Eve) from which the rest of us sprung. We must believe that in some way they committed the original sin as our representatives, and thus have caused all of us to be stained by that sin.
Whether or not it was the sin of eating a fruit because a talking snake told them to is less of the issue than the fact that their sin separated us from God, and that it needed Jesus Christ to redeem us.
That said, I personally believe the story is true. Perhaps it's because I grew up in a "fundamentalist" Protestant home, but I do. I think that if it was just a fable (no actual tree of life, no actual snake) then the bulk of the prophetic and typological imagery in this story is lost. (Typological means something that prefigures something greater to come--kind of like a prophecy that's not just words, but objects or people.)
What I mean is that the Tree of Life in the Garden is an image of the Cross by which Jesus saves us. The serpent is Satan, and he is referred to in Revelation 12, when the heavenly vision of Mary giving birth to Jesus refers to Satan and his defeat. It is a passage describing the fulfilment of God's promise in Genesis 3:15 that the offspring of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. If there was no serpent's head to crush, this prophecy seems rather meaningless--at least to me.
Further, if there were no Adam and Eve, then St. Paul couldn't have considered Christ as the "second Adam" and St. Irenaeus couldn't have similarly called Mary the "second Eve".
Hope that helps.
God bless!
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your words of reason and encouragement. Actually, as Gregory has pointed out, my own views on faith and works may be a little closer to what you’ve shared above, as long as we understand the works to be fruit of the faith and not vice-versa.
I do appreciate your points about theological arguments too. I used to argue with the cults until I came to a place similar to David’s (slave) and I questioned what my motives were. Was I doing this simply to do battle? To win arguments? Or was it really to serve the Lord? Because one of His great, foundational concerns the entire time would be to care for the souls behind those arguments – even those on the other side of it.
Let’s say that I did convince a cultist that he was wrong. At the same time I needed to be a good example that I was right, because that would place me in the position of receiving him into the faith. Hard to do, when you’ve made yourself his enemy along the way! With a wrong attitude, I could convince them they were wrong and at the same time become the barrier to their finding the truth. So, like you, I came to believe that there are certain points you could make an argument over, but for now you just have to let them slide. You have to trust that the Lord is the true teacher and He will come back to them in His own time. And I'm sorry for the occasions in which my trust may have failed.
I should also give a little bit of my own background because I think I’ve seen a lot of presumption about it. Quoting people like Luther or Calvin, or popes or counsels, in themselves, isn’t the key to persuading me. My whole theological perspective is based on Jesus Himself, as expressed in Eph 4:13-16. Because of this passage, I believe we will come to the unity of the faith when we see Jesus more clearly in our beliefs. To me, it’s perfectly acceptable to hear this clarification from a Catholic or a Protestant, or even Baalam’s donkey, if they can show me Jesus more clearly in the Scriptures than I have seen Him before. Jesus is my goal, and all else must subordinate itself to this goal. And I am sure this represents your heart as well.
I also believe that the same Scripture (at the premise level), foretells a reformation which will occur in the church of the end times. It will be based on a hermeneutic called ‘The Knowledge of the Son of God’. Objectively speaking, there is no reason why the Catholic church could not become the standard bearer in this reformation.
I think that the word ‘reformation’ might bring a reaction from Catholics, which I regret, but I am talking in terms of adding clarity and a focus on Jesus Himself, which all true Christians should rejoice in. Gregory says all Catholic doctrines already have this focus, and if so this might simply be the next logical step. Because that prophecy will be fulfilled in it’s time, and not return to God void. Anyway, my blog is examining the basics from this perspective.
Thanks again for your words of reason.
Getting back to Chris's first question, he wrote:
My question to you is this: would you mind explaining the difference between imputed, and imparted justification? And if you get the time, perhaps you could scramble up a very brief apologetic for why Catholics interpret sola fide to mean non sola fide et gratia?
I don't think that the distinction lies in "imputed" and "imparted", since Christ "imparts" justification to us. The distinction is between "imputed" and "infused". In Catholicism, Christ infuses us with His Grace when He justifies us, and this grace energises and enlivens our faith response to Him, making it meritorious. On the other hand, Luther taught that Christ's righteousness is merely imputed to us in a forensic sense. The "Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms" that we got in theology class has it thus:
"justification, justification by faith. A forensic (legal) term related to the idea of aquittal, justification refers to the divine act whereby God makes humans, who are sinful and therefore worthy of condemnation, acceptable before a God who is holy and righteous. More appropriately described as "justification by grace through faith," this key doctrine of the Reformation asserts that a sinner is justified (pardoned from the punishment and condemnation of sin) and brought into relationship with God by faith in God's grace alone."
On the other hand, the Catechism describes Justification saying:
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life: [Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.]
>But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.< [Rom 3:21-26.]
1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
>When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.< [Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.]
So the difference isn't between "impartation" and "imputation". Rather, it is between whether our justification "imputes" righteousness to us, or actually "infuses" us with righteousness. Luther opted (from what I've read of it) for an idea that God simply imputes His righteousness to us, while Trent reacted by claiming that the imputation of Christ's righteousness was accompanied by the actual infusion or "pouring into" of righteousness to us (CCC #1991-1992 above).
In this way, the righteouness of God in Jesus Christ actually becomes our own, and when His Grace regenerates us, we actually can begin to merit through our works--but even those merits, as St. Augustine explains, are God's crowning His own gifts. Our very merit is a grace of God through the passion of Christ.
We see this in St. Paul's and St. James' treatment of Abraham's justification. St. Paul claims he was justified by faith when he believed God. God credited it as righteousness. Why? Because an act of faith is an act of righteousness. Similarly, James claims that Abraham was justified by his active willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. This is because the act was indicative of his faith. They go together.
(It also demonstrates, by the way, that Abraham's justification was not simply a one-time event, but a process. This is why the Catholic Church treats "justification" and "sanctification" as synonyms.)
I hope that helps.
God bless
Gregory
Two cents,
First, Gregory; I reviewed my comment, and the 'draft' in my files; part of the comment is missing on the blog:
It says:
You believe in the Absolute Authority, Infallibility, and Interpretation of the Scriptures by the Catholic Church supersedes the Scriptures themselves, as is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church…
It should have said (and does in my notes): You believe in the Absolute Authority, Infallibility, and Interpretation of the Scriptures by the Catholic Church is equal to or supersedes the Scriptures themselves, as is the Doctrine of the Catholic Church…
Which is how you responded - w/ three legged stool - illustration.
Second, I did not 'withdraw' because I felt this conversation/argument had reached an impasse...I withdrew from the 'engagement' because I realized I wasn't doing it for the 'Glory of God' I was doing it for my glory.
Might I suggest, since a couple of the recent posts deal with -personal 'hurt feelings', that some 'rules of engagement' be drawn up?
Particularly - ad hominem arguments not be allowed...
Just a thought to keep a 'fruitful' discussion from becoming a sword fight.
Blessings and peace...
Slave! Good to see you!
Change for your $.02
First: I still disagree with the word "supercedes" in the above description, and I would still reply with the three-legged-stool analogy. I would agree, however, wtih the "equal to" statement. I might have phrased it as "on par with", though. Maybe that's just me. Anyway...
Second: For the record: I never claimed you'd thought the argument had reached an impasse. That was Loren's interpretation. Just to clarify.
I had drawn up a vague guideline (as opposed to a list of rules) in the original post for this thread:
The Rules are simple: Conversation should be polite,
I think this ideal has been met and followed admirably well here--especially compared to some blogs and discussion boards I've seen! I'm really proud of the way people have conducted themselves here.
charitable,
By this, I mean that we assume the best of each other, and give the benefit of the doubt when we aren't certain about their meaning. I think for the most part, this has also been upheld--though, as tensions got higher, the ideal started slipping, or it was perceived to have.
and respectful, as is keeping with Christian conversation!
I have felt the level of respect here has also been admirable. I only felt disrespected at one point, which I described above. If others have not felt that I've been overly respectful or charitable to them, I apologise. Please let me know if I have been, so that I can correct it.
Slander, insults, or other rude comments will receive due warning once, and deletion twice.
I don't recall any of that here (except possibly the one anonymous comment that Catholicism is Better than Protestantism--which could have been construed as inflammatory. I gave it due warning).
If it persists, I will delete any subsequent comments that are not an apology for rude behaviour.
The only comments I've had to delete were computer error or by request--and one advertisement from someone offering the opportunity to advertise businesses on my blog.
Keep it civil--we're all brothers and sisters in Christ (and for any non-Christian participants, they deserve an even greater dose of charity from us!).
I really do honestly think that we've done that. I would encourage everyone to keep it up. As Loren pointed out, when we're discussing an issue as sensitive as religion, people are bound to get defensive and feelings to be hurt.
But as Slave mentions, this should not be aggravated by "ad hominem" attacks. (Ad hominem means directed at the person, as opposed to directed at the argument or position.)
I think I walked really close to that line myself when I rebutted Loren's Daniel 9:24 argument, when I said that his interpretation would get more of my respect if I had known that it didn't originate with him. I meant nothing disrespectful of Loren. I'm sure he's a wonderful pastor and student of the Scriptures. I just meant that Christianity is an historical faith, and that there are 2000 years of study and interpretation of the Bible--and if an interpretation, no matter who makes it, is on its own and completely novel in 2000 years, it immediately raises flags with me and causes me to be suspect of it.
Again, if I have in any other way engaged in ad hominem attacks, even perceived ones, I will retract that argument and rephrase it to pertain to the position, and not the person.
So yeah, in conclusion,
Attacks on a person's character, sincerity, intelligence, or motives are not allowed!
God bless!
Loren,
Thanks for the reply. I used to do JW ministry a while back. You bring back some memories. I did have one comment On Eph 4:
10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
I went back a few more verses just for some context. Verse 14 was very powerful for me as I considered the Catholic church. I had followed a few theological fads and been disappointed by them. I saw this image of being tossed back and forth by waves as my reality. I also saw the image of the rock from Matthew 16 as where I wanted to be. The key was figuring out what Paul meant by the "Body of Christ". I knew it was the church but what did that look like in today's world? I had always had such an abstract idea of what the church was that it had no practical usefulness. I was active in the eccumenical circles but they could not get past the basics for fear of disagreements. That wasn't the answer. Matthew 18:17 seemed to refer to a visible entity that would carry real authority for followers of Jesus. Could the church be that real?
Anyway, I arrived in the Catholic church and texts like this take on a whole new meaning. We cannot be mature christians on our own. We can only do it as a church. Not with a subset of christians we have things in common with but with everyone. It starts with recognizing who Christ has ordained to be pastors, teachers, etc. In other words who are the legitimate bishops and pope. Once you accept that then things really take off.
Hi Randy,
I have no problem accepting that God has given some to minister among us. But the same passage says that we are growing up in all things into Christ who is the head, and it is from Him that the body holds together, each part doing it's share.
Conversely, Colossians 2:18-19 warns that the entire body must hold fast to the head - Christ - or we will be defrauded of our reward. I see Christ Himself active in the church as its head throughout all ages (Eph 3:21). This also means that our 'denominations' are a very artificial thing, and the church is more universal than we may realize.
I think I have a different take on authority, which I've already explained in depth in earlier comments. I don't see the authority of Christ delegated to anyone, only represented by them. And this also brings me to a different take on ministry:
"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
Matthew 20:25,26
This is the heart of our relationship with Christian leaders today. Like the Holy Spirit Himself, they are to come along side of us to point us diretly to Jesus, but without coming in between us. Instead of having their own authority over us, they point us to His authority, for it is to our master that we stand or fall. No one has dominion over our faith (Rom 14:4; 2 Cor 1:24)
Consider Peter himself. He never claimed to be a pope, but only a fellow elder, having no power to compel us or lord things over us, but only having the power of his example, with consciousness toward Christ the chief shepherd. (1 Peter 5:1-4). And it is in this sense that He exhorts all other leaders to come, as well.
If you'll follow that line of reasoning a little further, Peter advocates our submission to leaders rather than their authority over us. These are two entirely different models. And in vs 5 and 6, Peter even advocates enough humility to have mutual submission. In searching this out, I find it agreeable to the whole of Scripture.
I am very glad to see a hunger in you (and also in Gregory and myself, and others here,) that is not afraid to go wherever we must in order to walk with Jesus closer. Even if we make mistakes, I think God appreciates our motive and still works with us.
Hey Loren....
I don't see the authority of Christ delegated to anyone, only represented by them.
Matthew 16:18-19: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
First, Christ confers no such honor of "building His Church upon" other than Peter. While there are multiple layers of meaning within these two jam-packed verses, the primary meaning is plainly obvious: Christ build His Church upon Peter.
As we all know, Peter had his less than stellar moments. Yet, this fact does not detract from the fact that Christ is "the foundation" (1 Cor. 3:10-11) of the church. In fact, all of the apostles and prophets are referred to as "foundations" (Eph. 2:20) upon which the household of God is built. Do these contradict each other? Of course not. They compliment each other, because the "foundational-ness", so to speak, of the apostles & prophets and of Peter in particular is not their own.....it is only because of Christ that they have this quality.
Similarly, in Matthew 18, Christ explicitly gives the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter alone. No other Apostle is given such authority. The other Apostles are given the power of binding & loosing, just like Peter, however the authority of the keys has been given to Peter.
And again, does the fact that Christ gives His own authority (the keys) over to Peter mean that Christ no longer possesses that authority? Of course not!! Because the authority that Peter possesses because of the keys is not his own, it is the very power of Christ.
This was nothing new either. In Matt. 23:2-3, Jesus say, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." Now how in good conscience could Christ command the people to listen to a group He so lovingly referred to as "a brood of vipers"? He could do that because God had given the Pharisees the power to teach without error, even if their hardness of hearts prevented them from recognizing what they were teaching!
So there is evidence to suggest that throughout salvation history God has given His own authority to men. This doesn't mean God gave up His own authority, on the contrary. He enjoys making us a part of His plan, in fact He wouldn't have it any other way! But fear not, for in giving His authority over to the Jews first (through the Levirite priesthood) and then the Church (through Peter & his successors) God has not "let go of the reigns" so to speak. The whole point is that while God has chosen men to give His authority to, we can be assured that the Holy Spirit is guiding those whose offices retain such authority to always teach the Truth!
"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
Matthew 20:25,26
Precisely! Would we expect that the authority of a God so humble as to send His only Son to die on a cross for the salvation of men to be otherwise? Of course not! Rather, God's authority is as Christ is, both humble and commanding. Do not confuse humility with weakness. For Christ was not only humiliated before men, He taught with authority and power as well. So too is His authority given to the Church. So it's not a surprise that we see Peter (as you note) advocat[ing] our submissin to leaders. But what you leave out are the examples of Peter doing as Christ did...teaching, healing and acting with authority. (Acts 1:15-22, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:6-8, Acts 3:12-26, Acts 4:8-12, Acts 4:19-20, Acts 5:3-5, Acts 5:8-10, Acts 5:29-32, Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40, etc etc)
This is the heart of our relationship with Christian leaders today. Like the Holy Spirit Himself, they are to come along side of us to point us diretly to Jesus, but without coming in between us. Instead of having their own authority over us, they point us to His authority, for it is to our master that we stand or fall. No one has dominion over our faith (Rom 14:4; 2 Cor 1:24)
Nobody ever said the authority was their own. The Church has always understood Petrine authority to be Christ's authority alone. Again, do not make the mistake of assuming that because Christ chooses to use men to carry out His authority on earth, that somehow that "comes between" man and Christ or in any way degrades Christ.
Consider Peter himself. He never claimed to be a pope, but only a fellow elder, having no power to compel us or lord things over us, but only having the power of his example, with consciousness toward Christ the chief shepherd. (1 Peter 5:1-4). And it is in this sense that He exhorts all other leaders to come, as well.
But he did act as Pope. When Paul and Barnabas could not settle the dispute with the Judaizers, what happened? They didn't break open the OT and pour over the Scriptures and come to decision. Rather, Peter stood up and settled the matter. And "the whole assembly fell silent" (Acts 15:12).
If you'll follow that line of reasoning a little further, Peter advocates our submission to leaders rather than their authority over us. These are two entirely different models. And in vs 5 and 6, Peter even advocates enough humility to have mutual submission. In searching this out, I find it agreeable to the whole of Scripture.
Yes, we should submit wholeheartedly to those who have authority over us, as Scripture mandates. And because the authority we are submitting to is Christ's, not that of men, we have no basis on which to dispute "what they say". Now, if their actions diverge from their teaching, then we are still not free to disobey those in authority, only NOT mimic their actions. This is where the Reformation got off track. Of course there have been abuses by clergy throughout history. But that disappointing fact does not give us authority to diverge from their teaching, lest we reject Christ Himself.
I am very glad to see a hunger in you (and also in Gregory and myself, and others here,) that is not afraid to go wherever we must in order to walk with Jesus closer. Even if we make mistakes, I think God appreciates our motive and still works with us.
Right on!
Hi Peter,
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus. I think we’ve been over the Matt 16:18-19 question a few times, so I’ll spare everyone a re-hash of that. But I’m glad you brought up Ephesians 2:20, which says that we are built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself the chief cornerstone.
This means that our faith is built on Jesus Himself (1 Cor 3:11), and the testimony of Him was the chief emphasis of all that the apostles and prophets wrote about: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10), and this was also the spirit of the writings of the apostles (2 Cor 3:6,17). Sort of a two-legged stool (sorry).
This verse implies that the two perspectives were designed to be considered together. in our learning of Jesus (Acts 17:11-12; 26:22). When we combine them, the difference is like seeing His life with one eye only, or with two eyes together. One eye gives a clear picture, but two eyes will bring depth perception. If you’d like to see an example of how effective this can be, click on this module: The Sufferings and the Glory.
Didn’t really want to go into this again, but here’s my basic take on authority. Jesus specifically said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth, and to go therefore. In other words, He still has all the authority and we have none, so we must act in His name, as representing Him.
This is a representation of authority, not a delegation of it. When we do represent Him truly, by quoting Him for example, the authority is represented in the word that was spoken, not in the person of the speaker. As an example to the contrary, what if two equal priests disagreed with each other? Where would authority stand, if not in the true representation of the Lord?
The only authority Christian leaders have (other than authority over the devil) is the authority God bestows on them in relation to their tasks. Not an authority over people, an authority over tasks (Matt 20:25-26; Mark 13:34). If someone is a pastor, for example, he has authority to perform the tasks of a pastor, and by the same authority he deserves to be paid.
Here’s the thing. Remember Israel in the days of Samuel. God was their king, though He did raise up leaders in the form of judges (see 2 Chr 19:6). But the people rejected their unseen king in preference to a human king whom they could see. In the church, where Christ has become the King, God has fufilled all, and returned the whole situation to the original arrangement:
”I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city."
(Isa 1:26)
I checked out your reference from Acts 15:12, and actually Paul and Barnabas were the ones who spoke when the whole multitude fell silent. Afterward it was James, not Peter, who issued the decree of the Jerusalem council. Another very interesting subject, but for another day.
Peter, I just want to say that I really appreciate your attitude in the things you wrote, I think you’re a stellar example of 2 Tim 2:24.
Actually, Loren, we've really only been over the Peter thing at your blog, not here. It hadn't really come up here at all. So it's fair game and really does need an answer, even if you just wanted to copy/paste the discussion from over at POLD.
Furthermore, your view of authority isn't necessarily different from the Catholic view. I think we're just phrasing it differently.
In Catholicism, authority isn't inherent in the position or the person, but procedes from Christ, as He grants it for the task. For example, the Pope is called the vicar or representative of Christ. His authority comes because of that position. That position is authoritative because it speaks for Christ. It is somewhat similar to the whole "Infallible Decree" thing. An infallible decree isn't just something the Pope says, and it isn't infallible simply because the pope said it. Rather, the Dogma must pertain to issues of faith (what the Church believes) or morals (how the Church must act). Furthermore, the statement is only infallible if it is made "ex cathedra". In other words, the intent is to rule on something based on the authority given by Christ to Peter when He gave the Keys to him.
As you pointed out at POLD in our discussion, Christ does have the Keys (Revelation 3), but this does not mean that He did not give them to St. Peter, in the same way that Peter (the guy that posted above, not the Apostle) mentioned about the text in Ephesians that the Church is built on the foundation of prophets and apostles, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. So Christ gives the Keys to Peter, but the use of the Keys is not independent of Christ. Ephesians calls the Church the Body, and Christ the Head. As I mentioned (again at POLD), Christ without a Church is a decapitated Saviour. The Church without Christ is a headless corpse.
St. Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20). An ambassador is one who is given authority to speak on behalf of another. The authority stems from the relationship that the ambassador has with the one sending him, but it is a real authority nonetheless--the same authority Christ gives when He said in Luke 10:16, "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me."
Loren, since you like parables so much, here's one:
Mark 13:34-37: "For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."
This parable is describing the second coming. In it, Jesus is the owner of the house, which is itself the Church. He is saying that when He leaves (at the ascension) that He will give His servants (Church leaders--Pope and Bishops in the Catholic's mind) authority over the house, and work to "every man". We must, therefore, all be faithful in the work and watchful for when He returns. But it seems pretty clear that authority is delegated. Since this parallels the great commission of Matthew 28 in meaning, it is not illogical to assume that when Christ says that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me, go therefore..." there is a delegation of authority taking place.
Now that it's come up, though, I don't think this authority issue is going away. I'm settling in for it being the next discussed topic here (though I was oh so hoping for the Eucharist ;) ).
God bless! And Peter, thanks for your input. I enjoyed reading your blog. A lot of great insight!
Loren,
I can understand why you want to stay away from Matt 16:18-19. The protestant position is pretty weak there.
Conversely, Colossians 2:18-19 warns that the entire body must hold fast to the head - Christ - or we will be defrauded of our reward. I see Christ Himself active in the church as its head throughout all ages (Eph 3:21). This also means that our 'denominations' are a very artificial thing, and the church is more universal than we may realize.
This is precisely what the papacy is supposed to do. That is why we need it throughout all ages. Denominations are not just artifical they are evil. Some say "I follow Paul" and other say "I follow Apollos". That is not an option for christians. We cannot divide into groups according to who's teaching we follow.
Your comments on the nature of authority are very catholic. Not sure what differance authority being represented rather than delegated means. Still bishops and popes are called to be servant king's. Pope Benedicts first words were to describe himself as a humble servant in a vinyard. I would suggest that you will often get more christ-like leadership if you accept the leaders Jesus appoints rather than picking your own.
Like Gregory keeps pointing out. The magesterium is there to bring Jesus to you in a much more real way. Jesus is the chief cornerstone. The apostles and their succesors are the foundation. The foundation is not the end. It is there so something can be built on top of it. That is where we come in. We cannot be structurally sound with just the cornerstone. We need the foundation of the apostles.
You miss the point of Acts 15. What that describes is a church council. That is when all the bishops from around the world get together with the pope and discern God's will on some key issue facing the church. James was the one who opposed the resolution that was eventually adopted. That is why his words are so important. He did not go start his own church but he obeyed the church even when he disagreed. Peter was given a special revelation on the subject a little before the council. So the Holy Spirit was guiding the church leadership to make the correct decisions. The bishops spoke in unity with the pope. They came away unitied behind God's truth. That is the way the church is supposed to work.
Hi Gregory,
Yes, I began to realize last night that the Matthew 18 discussion actually took place on POLD and it may not have been discussed here at all. I’ll try to add a concise form of it later today. My apologies.
I quoted the Mark 13 reference above and made some points about it already. I agree that authority is given in relation to tasks but it is not an authority over other persons. See my notes above.
I have to leave right now or I would talk some more. Say Gregory, why don’t you go ahead and start a new post on the eucharist since it’s on your heart. I’m sure we’d all like to hear a little more on that.
P.S. Randy, yes denominational boundaries are really an evil. But so is the “I am of Cephas” boundary which we should also mention in fairness. I have to rush, I’ll try to come back to the Jerusalem council later, which I think is a fascinating subject.
Hey Loren...
I think we’ve been over the Matt 16:18-19 question a few times, so I’ll spare everyone a re-hash of that.
Sorry to bring it up again, I wasn't involved in the first go round.
But I’m glad you brought up Ephesians 2:20, which says that we are built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself the chief cornerstone.
This means that our faith is built on Jesus Himself (1 Cor 3:11), and the testimony of Him was the chief emphasis of all that the apostles and prophets wrote about: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10), and this was also the spirit of the writings of the apostles (2 Cor 3:6,17).
No disagreement there. Everyone here I think acknowledges that Christ is the emphasis of their teaching, preaching, healing, verily of their every action. The topic of discussion is whether Peter primarily, as well as the apostles to somewhat lesser degree, actually wield the authority of Christ on earth or not.
Didn’t really want to go into this again, but here’s my basic take on authority. Jesus specifically said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth, and to go therefore. In other words, He still has all the authority and we have none, so we must act in His name, as representing Him.
Again, do not go down the dead end road of implying that if Christ were to give his authority to another (Peter), that that would in any way detract from the authority that Christ possesses within Himself. The relationship is not "either/or" as it seems you make it out to be. But rather look to the verse that Matt 16:18-19 directly quotes, Isa. 22:21-22: "I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder, when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
Now why would God go to the lengths of drawing this obvious parallel (almost verbatim in fact!) if the authority Christ is giving Peter in Matthew's gospel were totally unlike the authority which God is giving Eliakim in Isaiah? He wouldn't. The parallel is that of a King and his prime minister. The King obviously wields all authority. However the King chooses to give that authority to another to act in His name. Loren, you are correct in your assertion that the authority is STILL the King's (i.e. Christ's)....but you err in believing that the authority the prime minister excercises is not real.
This is a representation of authority, not a delegation of it. When we do represent Him truly, by quoting Him for example, the authority is represented in the word that was spoken, not in the person of the speaker.
Again, the authority that Christ gives is not an authority of representation, it is the very authority given to Him by the Father (as I'll show below).
As an example to the contrary, what if two equal priests disagreed with each other? Where would authority stand, if not in the true representation of the Lord?
Our point exactly! The Church possesses the very authority of Christ to act, teach, heal in His stead. So while priests may have contradictory opinions concerning a particular point, if the church has spoken on the matter then whichever one is not in agreement with that stance is in error. We can know absolutely without a doubt what the answer is because "Peter" has spoken, and therefore Christ has spoken.
The only authority Christian leaders have (other than authority over the devil) is the authority God bestows on them in relation to their tasks. Not an authority over people, an authority over tasks (Matt 20:25-26; Mark 13:34).
I disagree. Peter is told to "feed my sheep" by Christ Himself. Christ is the Shepherd, yet He's given Peter the authority to act as shepherd. Similarly John 16:14 says, "Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." So everything Christ has is really the Father's to begin with. Does this mean that Christ only "represents" the Father's authority or does Christ fully possess it? I say the latter. And so it is the same with His apostles, and Peter in particular. The authority Christ gives is real authority, because it is His own to freely give.
Here’s the thing. Remember Israel in the days of Samuel. God was their king, though He did raise up leaders in the form of judges (see 2 Chr 19:6). But the people rejected their unseen king in preference to a human king whom they could see. In the church, where Christ has become the King, God has fufilled all, and returned the whole situation to the original arrangement:
Indeed! Christ has fulfilled all....but to imply that He doesn't use man to carry this out is where we diverge.
I checked out your reference from Acts 15:12, and actually Paul and Barnabas were the ones who spoke when the whole multitude fell silent. Afterward it was James, not Peter, who issued the decree of the Jerusalem council. Another very interesting subject, but for another day.
Sorry man, but I can't let you get away with this one!! ;-)
Acts 15:2 says, "Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question."
When they arrived they were welcomed and it seems immediately deluged with questions from the party of the Pharisees about whether circumcision was required or not. Then, starting in verse 7:
"After much debate had taken place, Peter gotup and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. (9) He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. (10) Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? (11) On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." <-- end quote.
THEN, the very next verse says "(12) The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked amongt the Gentiles through them. (13) After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me....."
The thing to notice is that it was Peter's words which put all questions to rest, not Paul, Barnabas or James, for we see them engaged in what was termed as "no little dissension and debate". That means this wasn't just a small dispute, I can imagine shouting and wailing and tantrums the likes of which my 3 year old hasn't even dreamed of yet!! And yet, Peter speaks and the whole assembly falls silent. No more questions, no more debate. Insted they are silent and are able to then listen to what Paul, Barnabas and James have to say.
Peter, I just want to say that I really appreciate your attitude in the things you wrote, I think you’re a stellar example of 2 Tim 2:24.
Thanks a lot Loren, that is exactly my intention. My wife converted to Catholicism back when we were dating. Her family is still very hardcore Southern Baptist (2 pastors in the family), so you can imagine the intense discussion that goes on in our home from time to time. Needless to say we know well the hurt, pain and anguish such discussions can lead to if not done in the Spirit of charity. So I do indeed hope that even if we must part ways on particular topics that our very REAL bond in Christ our Lord is never frayed nor questioned.
To the Glory of God in the NAME of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit....for His Mercy endures forever!
Pax,
Peter
Gregory...
God bless! And Peter, thanks for your input. I enjoyed reading your blog. A lot of great insight!
Thanks! I don't get to update it as often as I would like. Recently I just finished releasing 3 websites for our parish that include a church site, a youth site, and a site dedicated to our mission in Peru. Anyway, needless to say between that and having 3 small children under 3 years old.....I don't get a lot of free time! ;-)
So I read that you're getting married soon eh? Congratulations! My wife and I have been married 4 years and you are going to absolutely love it! What a blessing it is indeed.
Pax,
Peter
Matthew 16:13-20
Peter Confesses Jesus As the Christ
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."
ESV Commentary - R.C. Sproul General Editor
"Peter...rock. The name "Peter is a play on the Greek word for "rock" (petra)[Good Band!]. There are four leading interpretations of this play on words: (a) Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ" (v. 16) is the rock upon which the church is built; (b) Jesus Himself is the rock, as Peter later testifies (1 Peter 2:5-8); (c) Peter, as the representative apostle, is a foundation in the church (Eph 2:20); (d) Peter represents by his confession the type of person on which the true church will be built.
The first and second possibilities are often defended by pointing out that Peter's name is petros and the rock is petra. But this linguistic difference is not significant for this context. The second possibility is unlikely because Jesus describes Himself in this passage as not the foundation but the builder of the church.
If it had not been for the abuse of this passage by the Roman Catholic Church, it is unlikely that any doubt would have arisen that the reerence it to Peter. But the foundational rock is Peter as a representative apostle (v 15 note; who do you say that I am. The "you" is plural; Peter answers on behalf of the Twelve.) whose confession of Christ has been revealed to him by the Father. As Peter himself later declares (1 Peter 2:4-8), all believers have become "living stones" by virtue of their association with Christ, with the apostles as the foundation (Eph 2:20, 21; Rev 21:14). When Peter says that Jesus must not go to the cross, he is not called a foundation rock, but a stumbling block (v 23 and text note; text says, "But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are "a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."'" note, Greek for "a hindrance" stumbling block.)
Gates of Hell. In the Old Testament and other literature the "gates of Sheol" or the "gates of death" are equivalent to "death." "The gates of hell" may also be a reference to "death."
16:19 Keys of the Kingdom. This meaphor specifies how the apostles are foundational to the church; they have been given binding and loosing powers, or "keys," which lock and unlock doors. The apostles open the kingdom to those who share Peter's confession and exclude those who will not receive their testimony to Christ (Matt 10:14,15). Through them Jesus reveals His own word of kingdom authority. The apostolic foundation of the church is laid in the written Word of God, the Scriptures, which are not the keys of Christ's authority in the church (Eph 2:20; 3:5) through the power of the Spirit (Matt 18:18). See "Church Discipline and Excommunication" at Matt 18:15.
Church:
The church exists in and through Jesus Christ, and so is a distinctive New Testament reality. At the same time it is continuous with Israel, the seed of Abraham and God's covenant people. The new covenant under which the church lives (1 Cor 11:25; Heb 8:7-13) is a new form of the relationship in which God says to His chosen community, "I will be your God, and you shall be my people" (Jer 7:23; 31:33; cf. Ex 6:7).
Under the new covenant, the Old Testament priests, sacrifices, and sanctuary have been superseded by the mediation of Jesus (Heb 1-10). Believers in Christ are the seed of Abraham and the people of God (Gal 3:29; 1 Peter 2:4-10). Second, the limitation of the old covenant to one nation (Deut 7:6; Ps 147:19,20) is replaced by the inclusion in Christ on equal terms of believers from every nation (Eph 2,3; Rev 5:9,10). Third, the Spirit is poured out on the church, so that fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:3), ministry from Christ (John 14:18; Eph 2:17), and foretastes of heaven (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14) become realities in the experience of the church.
The unbelief of most Jews (Rom 9-11) and the majority of Gentiles in the church is depicted by Paul as God's breaking off the natural branches of His olive tree (the historical covenant community) and replacing them with wild olive shoots (Rom 11:17-24). The new covenant does not exclude Jews, and Paul taught that their general rejection of it will one day be reversed (Rom 11:15, 23-31).
The New Testament teaches that the church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament hopes and patterns, brought about by Jesus Christ. The church is the family and flock of God (John 10:16; Eph 2:18, 3:15, 4:6; 1 Peter 5:2-4), His Israel (Gal 6:16), the body and bride of Christ (Eph 1:22,23; 5:23-32; Rev 19:7; 21:2,9-27), and the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16; cf Eph 2:19-22).
The church is a single worshiping community, permanently gathered in the true sanctuary, the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22-24) and the place of God's presence. The church is one, although the worshiping community consists of the church militant--those who are still on earth--and the church triumphant--those who have died and entered glory. On earth, the church appears in its local congregations, each one a microcosm of the church as a whole. According to Paul the one church universal is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-26; Eph 1:22,23; 3:6; 4:4), but so is each local congregation (1 Cor 12:27; "The Local Church" at Rev 2:1).
The church on earth is one in Christ despit the great number of local congregations and denominations (Eph 4:3-6). It is holy because it is consecrated to God corporately, as each Christian is individually (Eph 2:21). It is catholic (meaning "universal") because it is worldwide. Finally, it is apostolic because it is founded on apostolic teaching (Ehp 2:20). All four qualities may be seen in Eph 2:19-22.
There is a distinction to be drawn between the church as people see it and as God alone sees it. The difference is the historic distinction between the "visible church" and the invisible church." "Invisible" does not mean that no part of it can be seen, but that its exact boundary is not known to us. Only God knows (2 Tim 2:19) which members of the earthly congregations are inwardly born again, and so belong to the church as an eternal and spiritual fellowship. Jesus taught that in the organized church there would always be people who seemed to be Christians, not excluding leaders, who were nevertheless not renewed in heart and would be exposed and rejected at the Judgment (Matt 7:15-23; 13:24-30,36-43, 47-50; 25:1-46). There are not two churches, one visible and another hidden in heaven, but one church only, known perfectly to God and known imperfectly on earth.
The New Testament assumes that all Christians will share in the life of a local congregation, worshiping in the body, accepting its nurture and discipline (Matt 18:15-20; Gal 6:1), and sharing its ministry and witness. Christians who refuse to join other believers disobey God and spiritaully impoverish themselves (Heb 10:25).
Rev 2:1 The Local Church
Each local church is a manifestation of the one universal church, and will embody the nature of that church as the Father's regenerate family, Christ's ministering body, and a fellowhsip sustained by the Holy Spirit. In the course of separating from the Roman Catholic church, the Reformers needed to be sure about what were the marks of the true church. From Scripure, they found the answer in terms of two criteria.
1. The faithful preaching of the Word of God: This means that the church teaches the Christian gospel according to the Scripture. Any group that denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the sin-bearing Atonement, or justification by faith alone, is like the separatists of earlier times whose denials of the Incarnation (1 John 4:1-3) caused John to say, "they were not of us" (1 John 2:19).
2. The right use of the sacraments: this criterion means that baptism and the Lord's Supper are used and explained as setting forth the gospel of faith in Christ. Turning these sacraments into superstitions that take away the sufficiency of faith in Christ undercuts the identity of the church, like anything else that abstructs faith in Christ. One purpose of baptism is to mark those who are receive into the visible church. The Lord's Supper confirms for the faithful their membership in the church and their community with each other and with Christ.
Christians have found other marks of identity alongside these minimal two. Luther specified the keys of discipline (Matt 16:19), an authorized ministry (Acts 14:23; 20:28), public worhsip (Heb 10:25), and suffering under the cross (Acts 14:22; 20:29). The Reformed churches specified a functioning system of discipline, often calling discipline the third mark of the visible church (Titus 1:13; 2:15; 3:10). Charismatics point to the active ministry of every member as a mark of the true church (Eph 4:7-16).
These additional marks are not, however, essential in the way that the first two are. A church that lacks the additional marks is seriously deficient, but it would not be true to say that it is no church at all.
Titus 1:5-7 Qualifications for Elders
"This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's stewared, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,"
Elder: A group of individuals charged with the general care of a local church (Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17). As vs 7 makes clear, Paul used the term interchangeably with "overseer." Paul discusses the qualifications for overseers in similar terms, yet with some differences, in 1 Tim 3:2-7. Paul intends neither list to be complete, but simply to indicate the personal qualities of those who would serve as church leaders.
1:7 For and overseer. Paul's casual shift from "elder" to "overseer" shows that he understands the two terms as referring to the same office: "elder" suggesting one's character (spiritually mature) and "overseer" suggesting on's task (Acts 20:17,28)."
[However many translations replace overseer with Bishop. No man if he meets the qualifications and desires to be a leader of a local church should be denied. However many churches have set limits as to the number of elders they will have. And the Roman Catholic church has set a distinctive Higherarchy. But the Model of the New Testimant Church throughout Scripure does not limit the number of elder apart from qualification.]
I hope that this is a help, but I do sence that it could just stir up a lot more trouble. But I feel it needed to be out there.
David
Hi Peter,
Just stopped by for a minute, and couldn’t resist being comment number 100. Thought I’d take a moment to answer your disagreement on the Jerusalem council.
Here’s what I think is evident in the passage. Peter has just finished speaking:
Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me . . . Therefore I judge . . .”
(Acts 15:12-13,19)
To me, it seems very clear that when Peter stopped speaking, everyone else was silent in order to listen to Paul and Barnabas without interruption. In itself, that means there was not an actual silence in the hall, for those two men were still speaking.
Afterward, it did fall again into silence. If there is a point to me made from silence, why would the first silence be more important than this one? If anything it would be the other way around. But even then, James spoke up, essentially saying that the debate was now over and here was the verdict. Peter didn’t make this decree, James did (although I do not imply that they disagreed). And even in other places, Peter showed a deference to James (Gal 2:11,12).
I have always thought that if a ‘pope’ type figure actually existed in the church, one would most naturally point to James as an example. Because this is the closest any person came to exercising a ‘papal’ type authority. I don’t think that’s what’s actually happening, by the way, but that is a discussion for another day.
Thanks for that David. It is a pretty good statement of the protestant idea of church. Like most things many protestants would disagree but I would have accepted this when I was a protestant.
It seems like the basic disagreement is about what is possible. Protestants know what God's heart for the church is but don't see it as attainable. They talk about one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Then they look at the confusing mass of denominations and they can see that the two don't match. So they can say there is something fundamentally wrong with the way they think about church or they can say God really only meant what he said in an abstract, spiritual, invisible sense. Since the first option is really hard they usually choose the second.
There are a few problems. One is the effect of making the church basically useless to the life of a typical christian. You end up stripping the faith down to a personal relationship with Jesus because the rest of it is too abstract. As Ephesians 4 tells us, we need the body of Christ to become mature so you see a lot of spiritual immaturity amoung protestants. Not everybody, but there is a tendancy towards a fundamentalist faith that focuses on the ABC's of christianity.
The other basic problem is creeping liberalism. Differant churches teaching differant doctrines tends to offer people many choices. Over time sin biases the choices people make and they end up with a watered down version of the faith. They lack certainty about their church's teaching so they often are unable to stand up to the ridicule of society.
Thank you Peter! Yup, I'm getting married Thanksgiving Weekend (well, Canadian Thanksgiving!) I appreciate your encouragement!
David, thanks for that. Wow, Sproul does go on, doesn't he? ;)
For the most part, I think I agree with that. A few things to mention, though.
"Peter...rock. The name "Peter is a play on the Greek word for "rock" (petra)[Good Band!].
WOOT Petra! Yes, they are a good band!...lol
There are four leading interpretations of this play on words: (a) Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ" (v. 16) is the rock upon which the church is built; (b) Jesus Himself is the rock, as Peter later testifies (1 Peter 2:5-8); (c) Peter, as the representative apostle, is a foundation in the church (Eph 2:20); (d) Peter represents by his confession the type of person on which the true church will be built.
The first and second possibilities are often defended by pointing out that Peter's name is petros and the rock is petra. But this linguistic difference is not significant for this context.
I really appreciate that someone like R.C. Sproul said that (or, since he was editor, allowed it to be said!). This was the bulk of the debate over at Loren's blog.
The second possibility is unlikely because Jesus describes Himself in this passage as not the foundation but the builder of the church.
Amen. Jesus, as the Greatest Teacher of all time, wasn't one to really mix metaphors.
If it had not been for the abuse of this passage by the Roman Catholic Church, it is unlikely that any doubt would have arisen that the reference is to Peter.
So we see that even Sproul, no great lover of the Catholic Church, agrees that the Rock in this passage is indeed a reference to Peter.
I disagree with his claim that the Catholic Church "abused" that text, though. When did the abuse begin? It was used pretty much immediately in the early Church to defend the "primacy of Peter" in later Church decisions and councils.
But the foundational rock is Peter as a representative apostle (v 15 note; who do you say that I am. The "you" is plural; Peter answers on behalf of the Twelve.) whose confession of Christ has been revealed to him by the Father.
Yes, the "you" is plural. Jesus wasn't just asking Peter--but in his role as head of the disciples, he blurted out the revelation that God gave him--and that certainly wasn't the only time! (cf. John 6:68-69 for a similar instance)
As Peter himself later declares (1 Peter 2:4-8), all believers have become "living stones" by virtue of their association with Christ, with the apostles as the foundation (Eph 2:20, 21; Rev 21:14).
Exactly, but as Peter (wow, that'll be nearly as confusing as three "Dave"s posting here) above commented (or maybe it was Randy?) the Church isn't just built on the cornerstone, nor is it just the foundation, but we are all stones in the building. Modern day churches tend to use steel girders and brick walls, but if we hearken back to the actual temple building, we recall that God commanded the walls to be made of uncarved stone.
When Peter says that Jesus must not go to the cross, he is not called a foundation rock, but a stumbling block (v 23 and text note; text says, "But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are "a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."'" note, Greek for "a hindrance" stumbling block.)
And yet, even when he was screwing up, Peter was still a block of stone!
About the whole "representing" the other apostles, this is what the Church teaches. Peter was the head and primary apostle (which is why he is referred to specifically by name 195 times in the NT. The next most named apostle is John, at a "close" second of 29 times!). His is the primary delegation of the authority indicated by the keys. While Jesus later endows the other disciples with the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), to only Peter are the Keys given.
Regarding the notion of "visible" and "invisible" church, St. Augustine would disagree with R.C. Sproul on this point. There is one church, and it is visible, like a city on a hill. Yes, it is full of sinners and "nominal" Christians, but they are indeed part of the Church. Only Christ has the authority to declare them outside, and that, as He tells us, is at the end of time (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).
Reflecting on this reality in the Church, St. Augustine says,
"Don't be surprised at the multitude of bad Christians who fill the church, who go up to the altar for Communion, who make a big deal of praising the bishop or priest when he speaks about good morals. Such people fulfil the prediction made by our shepherd in the psalm: 'Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be numbered" (Ps. 40:5). They can be with us in the Church of this time, but, after the resurrection, they will be unable to remain in the congregation of saints. The Church of this time has good mixed with bad. It is like a threshing floor, where grain is mixed with chaff, good members mixed together with evil. But, after the judgement, it will have all good members, without the evil. This threshing floor holds the harvest planted by the apostles and watered in turn by good teachers down to the present time. It has been threshed a bit by the persecution of enemies; now only the purificatoin of the final winnowing remains to be done. And indeed He is coming, of whom you have repeated in the creed: 'He will come to judge the living and the dead.' As the Gospel says: 'His winnowing fork is in His hand, to clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire" (Lk. 3:17).
"You older faithful people should also hear what I say: May the grain rejoice with trembling, and remain, and not leave the threshing floor. May you never try, by your own judgement, to free yourself from the chaff; for you cannot remain on the threshing floor if you seek to separate yourself now from the chaff. What's more, when Christ comes--He Who judges without error--He will not raise to the granary anything He has not found on the threshing floor. And those grains that have left the threshing floor will boast in vain about where they came from. The granary will be filled and closed. Fire will consume whatever is left outside."
(Sermon 223)
With regard to elders and overseers,
The greek word for "elder" is "presbyterion", from whence we derive the English word, by contraction, "Priest". The elders mentioned in Scripture are priests. And as you said, or rather, quoted, "No man if he meets the qualifications and desires to be a leader of a local church should be denied. However many churches have set limits as to the number of elders they will have." I'm sure if there were enough priests, the churches would be more than happy to have an abundance in their parishes...unfortunately, less men than might be supposed meet--or choose to meet--the qualifications.
Overseer, or "Episkopos", is indeed "Bishop". The interchangeability that Paul uses with regard to these words on the one hand reflects an incomplete hierarchical development in his day (though, contrary to much Protestant thought, that hierarchy existed extremely early on), but on the other hand, the terms in a sense are interchangeable, since all bishops (including the Pope, the Bishop of Rome) are priests, though not all priests are bishops.
That's about all I have to say, except...
Yikes! 100 posts!!!
Just stopped by for a minute, and couldn’t resist being comment number 100.
Lucky!!
Thought I’d take a moment to answer your disagreement on the Jerusalem council.
I do appreciate it.
Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me . . . Therefore I judge . . .”
(Acts 15:12-13,19)
To me, it seems very clear that when Peter stopped speaking, everyone else was silent in order to listen to Paul and Barnabas without interruption. In itself, that means there was not an actual silence in the hall, for those two men were still speaking.
The problem is that Paul & Barnabas were no longer speaking about the Judaizers! Peter's words settled that dispute.
Afterward, it did fall again into silence. If there is a point to me made from silence, why would the first silence be more important than this one?
Again, Paul & Barnabas were no longer speaking about a dispute but rather relaying the works of God through them amongst the Gentiles. It is clear that Peter's words bring the debate & confusion over that matter to an end.
If anything it would be the other way around. But even then, James spoke up, essentially saying that the debate was now over and here was the verdict. Peter didn’t make this decree, James did (although I do not imply that they disagreed).
But notice James even defers to "Symeon's" (Peter) statement when making his own. You have to step back and look at the series of events in order, but it makes complete sense.
1. Debate over the Judaizers.
2. Paul & Barnabas are sent to deal with the matter.
3. More debate. Apparently no solution.
4. Peter stands and gives his take.
5. No more debate.
6. Paul & barnabas talk about other matters in their dealings with Gentiles.
7. James closes the discussion. But notice that James' words are merely expounding on a decision that has already been made. He even refers to Symeon's words (Peter's) and comments on how Peter's declaration is in union with the prophets!
8. "Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church" send out representatives with a letter to Antioch to deliver the decision.
I don't deny that James played a significant part in the Council. But as bishop of the church in Jerusalem, such involvement would make perfect sense. It is plainly obvious however that Peter's role is the most important, as his words settle the matter from further debate. James merely backs that up.
Pretend your church did have a hierarchy like the one the Church has. If you're a pastor and your bishop comes to a meeting hosted in your jurisdiction it would make perfect sense for you, as the local pastor, to act as the host. You might get up and speak first, you might offer you final thoughts, you might even serve pastries and coffee to everyone else. But none of these actions means that your office takes precedence over your bishop's.
And even in other places, Peter showed a deference to James (Gal 2:11,12).
Loren, you sneaky fellow! ;-) You know darned well that this verse is THE ONLY one where James appears to be more authoritative than Peter. Don't try to pawn off this one occurance as if it were "commonplace". In fact, of all the verses in the NT where the apostles are named, Peter is listed first or in a manner of primacy in every single one except Gal 2:9. Seems to be rather the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
Further, I would just say also that James confronting Peter in Galations concerning his actions is completely valid. Pope's are not immune to error in their own personal actions any more than you and I.
Back to my analogy. During the meeting your bishop curses at someone who spills coffee on him. As a pastor and brother in Christ it would be your duty to rebuke your own bishop concerning his actions. But in no way does that have any effect on whether his office supercedes your own in teaching authority.
I have always thought that if a ‘pope’ type figure actually existed in the church, one would most naturally point to James as an example. Because this is the closest any person came to exercising a ‘papal’ type authority.
Well, besides the wealth of Scriptural support for the office of the Papacy, you still have the ECF's to deal with on the matter. If you're going to say the Church's interpretation of these key passages is wrong then you must provide a defensible explanation of why virtually all commentary on the Papacy during the first couple of hundred years of Christianity isn't consistent with that position.
I don’t think that’s what’s actually happening, by the way, but that is a discussion for another day.
I can't wait!
Pax,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Just stopped by again for a moment. A couple of comments:
It is clear that Peter's words bring the debate & confusion over that matter to an end.
Nice try, but James didn’t say “allow me to summarize”.” he said “Therefore I judge.” (You skipped commenting on that part!) In fact, in giving his judgment, he not only quoted Peter but He also quoted the prophets and thus (in vs 17) the Lord Himself. So it looks to me like he was simply doing what we’re all supposed to do: to hear the arguments and search the scriptures to see if these things are so, and thus to see what is proper to believe (Acts 17:11,12). 'Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged'." (Rom 3:4)
It is plainly obvious however that Peter's role is the most important, as his words settle the matter from further debate. James merely backs that up.
As you yourself pointed out, "the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church" were involved. James was simply doing what any good leader would do, to lead, but also to gather as much of a consensus as possible. Modern popes like to stress that they follow this same model in their dogma-related decisions, for example.
But you also bring up another point that fascinates me. If James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, then that sounds like a higher office than Peter’s, since Peter defers to James both in Acts 15 and Gal 2, one official and one not, and seems to report to him (at least unofficially) in Acts 12:17. Also, as you noted, when the Greek language gives a list of persons, it always mentions the most prominent person first, then the rest in descending order of importance. In Gal 2:9, James is listed before Cephas, and it is never the other way around.
Peter, this includes every case there is in Scripture! These examples are never contradicted! That doesn’t make them the exception, that makes them the rule!
If I was a nice guy (which I am, but I’m also very busy), I could let you guys off the hook on this and tell you what’s really going on. Sorry to leave you hanging, but I will be fair and talk to you about that as soon as I can. Or ask Gregory. We’ve talked enough that I’m sure he’d anticipate my answer.
Hi Peter,
I’m not going to have time tonight to talk about both James and Matt 16, so let me address the situation with James first, rather than leaving anyone hanging. There is a lot of background behind this, which you can read about here. But here’s the short version:
As James noted in the Jerusalem counsel, the tabernacle of David had fallen. But God would raise it up again, which He had accomplished through Jesus (Acts 15:16). This is the authority of judgment, by extension, that James now exercises. Again, the background is massive but I’ll try to be concise:
The right to David’s throne had passed through his dynasty until reaching King Jeconiah. But God was displeased with this man and said:
“Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah."
(Jer 22:30)
Nevertheless, the rest of the royal seed had all perished. This left a situation in which the descendants of Jeconiah were the only survivors, the only ones who could claim the title, yet they were prohibited from doing so. They were persona non grata in relation to the monarchy. All they could do with their title was receive it from their fathers and pass it along to their sons.
When Jesus was born in Joseph’s house, He was born of the seed of David through Mary alone. Thus, He was not born through the lineage of Jeconiah, since Mary was still a virgin when she gave birth. But being born in Joseph’s house, He became his heir, and the title to the throne passed to Jesus immediately upon His birth (Matt 2:2). Thus, He was the first one in the royal lineage to escape the restriction on Jeconiah’s descendants, and to actually be able to claim the throne. He was the true and rightful king of Israel, and His brothers were crownless princes:
Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule with justice.
(Isaiah 32:1)
Read the context of this prophecy, in vs 2. This is clearly a prophecy of Jesus, the king. Literally, the king. So by extension His brothers were literally the princes.
Sometimes when a king is absent, a senior member of the royal family will be chosen to execute judgment in their stead, even though they cannot actually claim the crown (I have wondered if this is what transpired in 1 Cor 15:7). We saw something similar with Zerubbabel. He was of the seed of David and could have been the king except for the restrictions of Jeconiah. But as a courtesy from the king of Persia, He was still made the Governor. James could not claim the throne either, but he became (I think the term is) Prince regent.
How this shakes out in the church brings a lot of conjecture. David himself, for example, established the orders of the priesthood, so James was acting in a similar role. But this would change.
I wish I had this fact at my fingertips, but I know that in one of the imperial persecutions the seed of David was hunted down and eliminated -- though God knows if this was really done completely or not. This brought the church full circle, back to another prophecy:
“I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city."
(Isaiah 1:26)
As an example of a ‘judge’ I might pick someone like Athanasius. There have probably been many others whom God has raised up, which does not imply that these men were perfect (look at Samson for example - talk about a judge with problems). And in any case, I guess from our perspective it’s a matter of opinion who was a judge and who was not. But anyway, that’s the basic story with James.
Also, as you noted, when the Greek language gives a list of persons, it always mentions the most prominent person first, then the rest in descending order of importance. In Gal 2:9, James is listed before Cephas, and it is never the other way around.
Peter, this includes every case there is in Scripture! These examples are never contradicted! That doesn’t make them the exception, that makes them the rule!
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying Peter in never mentioned before James when their names are listed? I find it hard to beleive that is what you mean but I will include a few counterexamples anyway.
Matthew 10:2
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
Matthew 10:1-3 (in Context) Matthew 10 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 17:1
[ The Transfiguration ] After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Matthew 17:1-3 (in Context) Matthew 17 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 5:37
He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.
Mark 5:36-38 (in Context) Mark 5 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:2
[ The Transfiguration ] After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.
Mark 9:1-3 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 13:3
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mark 13:2-4 (in Context) Mark 13 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 14:33
He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.
Mark 14:32-34 (in Context) Mark 14 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 6:14
Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,
Luke 6:13-15 (in Context) Luke 6 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 8:51
When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother.
Luke 8:50-52 (in Context) Luke 8 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 9:28
[ The Transfiguration ] About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.
Luke 9:27-29 (in Context) Luke 9 (Whole Chapter)
Acts 1:13
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Acts 1:12-14 (in Context) Acts 1 (Whole Chapter)
James Son of Zebedee vs. James the Brother of Christ son of Joseph?
Loren seems to be talking about the Brother of Christ and Randy you seen to be talking about the Son of Zebedee.
Big difference in the two!
Yes, that was my point. They are two different persons.
Hey Y'all, here are two articles that I have found on the Keys, which have slightly been touched on.
I am interested in knowing what Y'all think about the keys. I'm not looking for a debate, just what everyones take is. My beliefs are very similar to this first article, but the second is why I am asking the question...I have never seen that interpretation before and I am just cerious as to what all y'all's different beliefs are.
Again, it is not my intention to start another debate, but I am interested in beliefs supported by Scripture.
Thanks,
Without further adue, the 2 articles.
Power of the Keys
Question: Only Peter, not the other apostles, was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This means that Peter had supreme authority in the church.
Answer: The Lord Jesus told Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Catholic apologists often allude to this passage as important biblical evidence for the papacy.
Undoubtedly the Lord entrusted Peter with authority in the church; yet he was never made a pope. To prove the papacy it must be shown that Jesus delegated supreme power to Peter to rule over the entire church, and that this authority is passed on to his alleged successors, the bishops of Rome.
Catholic apologists note that since the Lord gave the "keys of the kingdom" to the apostle Peter alone, he must have a unique and superior authority. A Catholic writer states: "Since 'the keys' were confided to Peter alone, we understand that our Lord conferred upon Peter a particular authority within the whole company of the Apostles." [1]
Was Peter's authority really "particular" or, to be more exact, "superior"? No, not really, for the Lord goes on to explain how this authority is exercised, saying, "and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Elsewhere, the Lord gave the same authority of binding and loosing to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). Therefore Peter had an equivalent (not superior) authority to the other apostles. In Matthew 16, Peter is representative of the other apostles and all the Church, who follow him in confessing Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God. Therefore the whole Church shares the power of the keys.
Sometimes Matthew 16 is compared to Isaiah 22:22: "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open." One Catholic apologist argues, "Christ also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), a direct reference to Is. 22:22 where the servant Eliakim is granted, using the symbol of the keys, the authority of his master to become the Prime Minister, as it were, of the Davidic Kingdom. Here in Matthew we have Christ using the same language and the same symbol of the keys to grant His authority to His servant Peter, making Peter the Prime Minister of His Kingdom." [2]
It is doubtful whether Matthew 16 is at all a direct reference to Isaiah 22. For example, Isaiah speaks about "the key" (singular) while Matthew of "the keys" (plural). There is in fact a direct reference to Isaiah 22 in the New Testament and it is found in Revelations 3:7: "These things says He who is holy, He who is true, 'He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.'" The person holding the "key of David" is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Peter or the bishop of Rome.
While it is true that Christ did confer authority on Peter, it is also true that this authority was not unique to Peter, nor was it supreme over the other apostles and the entire church. The power of the keys was granted to the whole church to be exercised in the forgiveness of sins. The apostle Peter was the first to open the way of salvation through the preaching of the gospel, first to the Jews at Pentecost and later on to the Gentiles at Cornelius house. The church continues to exercise that authority through the gospel, proclaiming forgiveness to those who believe in Christ, and withholding forgiveness to unbelievers. The church is also duty bound to discipline obstinate sinful members, and the happy privilege to restore penitents to full fellowship. Such was the interpretation of the power of the keys by the Church Fathers. The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits:
"In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven." [3]
The Fathers did not limit the power of the keys to Peter or to his successors. They cited the "keys" as the prerogative of the church, not the exclusive power of any individual, whether the bishop of Rome or anyone else. They also interpreted this authority in reference to the forgiveness of sins, as the scriptural text does, and not as supreme jurisdictional authority of one bishop over the entire church, as the Roman Church does.
The following excerpt from Augustine illustrates the Father's interpretation of the keys. He writes:
"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church." [4]
Writing in the fifth century, Augustine knew nothing of the Roman Catholic claim that Peter or the bishops of Rome had the exclusive right to the power of the keys. Augustine saw Peter as the representative of the Church; therefore the keys are given by Christ to His Church. Moreover, the Church binds and looses people from sin through the personal response of faith and repentance of the individual, on account of which a person is received in the Church. That is what Evangelicals believe.
Roman bishops have usurped this passage and gave it a novel interpretation to bolster their proud claims to universal and supreme jurisdiction. This idea is foreign to the Fathers, and more importantly, it contrary to sound exegesis of the biblical text.
___________________________________
Insight into Bible Prophecy #86
Keys Promised to Peter
by David Vaughn Elliott
He who holds keys controls entry. Is Peter standing at the gates of heaven, deciding who enters? No, that is just sacrilegious joke material. Well then, will Peter be standing at the gates of a future millennium reign of Christ, deciding who enters? I never heard of any premillennialist teaching that.
What, then, is Jesus telling Peter in Matthew 16:18,19? "I will build My church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." Notice 1) In practically the same breath, with no hint of changing subjects, Jesus speaks of the church and the kingdom, apparently equating them. 2) Peter would use the keys to bind "on earth," thus it was to be done during his lifetime.
Since Jesus does not fail, His promises amount to prophecy. Thus this is a prophecy about the kingdom. The prophecy says that Peter will open the way into the kingdom and that he will make binding decrees regarding the kingdom. Even futurist-premillennialists apply this prophecy to Peter's earthly ministry beginning on the day of Pentecost. Thus they inadvertently confess that the church is the kingdom and that the kingdom of God began on the day of Pentecost in the year 30 A.D.
Since Jesus promised Peter "the keys of the kingdom," it is no coincidence that Peter was the leading spokesman on the day of Pentecost. Keys open doors. Once open, others can enter. Thus, Christ designated Peter to unlock the doors, telling people how they could enter the kingdom: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). The doors of the kingdom have been open for 2000 years. Those who listen to the holder of the keys are privileged to enter.
I'm right there with ya Loren.
Or as I like to say to my friends sometimes, "I smell what your steppin in, I here ya cluckin big chicken!"
So, I said that, that must mean that I consider y'all friends. Ahhh, group huge!
Jesus is great! Even though we may argue over some things, when you get back to Him, it's all about Love!!!
In Christ,
David
He makes a bunch of points here which are valid but then claims they defeat the main point which they do not. They just add to it. The binding and loosing authority was granted to Peter as well as the other apostles. The authority of the keys was just granted to Peter. The fact that one authority implies another does not make them equal. In fact it indicates the opposite. The words themselves mean that too. Binding and loosing was associated with Rabbi's. Keys were associated with kings and their officals. There is with keys the idea of an authority only a single person can hold.
The kingdom of God and the church are the same thing. The authority is with the church as well as with the leadership. The ECF's never said one and denied the other. Protestants don't even believe the church has the authority to forgive sins so the Augustine quote seems quite strange. The author pretends that the church forgiving sins is the same thing as forgiveness based on a personal response of faith but it is not.
I noticed the absence of any reference to the rock and the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. The image does not really fit with the idea that the import of this statement will die when Peter dies. There is a blessing here that extends as long as the church is battling the forces of hell.
I don't actually mind the idea that there is a reference to Pentecost. That is certainly part of it. Again it does not defeat the primary meaning of the passage.
I don't think it is possible to come to this passage without a huge bias. The idea that someone might have an authority over you that comes from God is going to be hard to accept. Still these are strong words by Jesus indicating how He wants church to work.
Thanks for your patience on the Matthew 16 question. First, here is the passage itself:
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am? "Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
(Matt 16:15-18)
The Greek word for ‘Peter’ is ‘Petros’ which means a small stone, a piece from a larger rock (Strong’s 4074), But the ‘rock’ on which the church is built is a different Greek word, ‘Petra’ (Strong’s 4073) which means a mass of rock, like the Rock of Gibraltar. Vine’s explains:
Petra ^4073^ denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice).
In other words, Peter has recognized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that Jesus Himself is the true rock and foundation of the church:
“For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?” (2 Sam 22:32);
"Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man who . . . laid the foundation on the rock" (Gr: Petros) Luke 6:47-48
“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11)
Because Simon has recognized this truth about Jesus, he has gotten ‘a piece of the rock’ (to use the old ad line). Nothing in this passage makes him the first pope, it simply means he’s been recognized as a part of the church, just like anyone else who would recognize Jesus as the Christ.
Arguments against: although this was written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. And in Aramaic it probably read: “you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church.” Thus, only one word was really used, and this offers a direct identification with Peter.
Answers: Like most languages, Aramaic has two distinct words for a small rock and a larger rock. The word for the larger rock is Shu'a, and for the smaller rock it is Ke'pha.
“A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church. . . The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
For further elaboration on this perspective, click here.
Furthermore, given what is at stake in this verse, let’s examine the Lord’s choice of words. He could simply have said: ‘You are Petros, and upon this petros I will build My church’ and this would have left us no doubt in favor of Peter. But instead, He chose two different words. If it was actually one and the same word in the spoken Aramaic, it could have been translated that way into the Greek as well, but it wasn’t (and remember that the Greek version was inspired, so this was not a human oversight.)
Or even more simply Jesus could have said: “You are Peter, and on you I will build My Church’ and that would have ended all debate in favor of Peter as well. It would also have been easier for Him to say it that way, and more natural to do so if that was His intention. So why didn’t He do that? Why choose two different words if His intention was to focus on one person, Peter? “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” (1 Cor 14:33).
Since God is not the author of confusion, He chooses this wording for the purpose of clarification. He made a distinction between Peter (the small stone) and the larger issue of Himself (the large stone) because we needed to grasp this distinction in order to understand His meaning properly.
In saying this, I do not deny the prominent role that Peter played in the early church. It’s just that it’s not the point.
In the same passage, in Matthew 16, Jesus says to Peter “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:19)
Argument: Peter becoming the first pope is a fulfillment of Isaiah 22, in which the key of the house of David was give to Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who symbolized Peter. The prophecy foretells that Peter would be made the steward of the church, a father to the church, and the word ‘pope’ means ‘father’.
Answer: Please notice in Isaiah 22:22 that there is only one ‘key’ to the house of David (rather than the ‘keys’ Jesus mentions in this passage), and that Jesus alone has this particular key: ”And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens" (Rev 3:7). So this could not be the same as the ‘keys’ He mentions in Matthew 16. Those keys are for everyone who believes in Him:
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” (Col 3:17)
The prophecy in Isaiah 22 was actually not symbolic of Peter, but symbolic of Christ Himself. Jesus specifically told us that He has the key of David; and the rest of the context contains graphic imagery of His crucifixion (v 23-25).
Furthermore, Jesus was called “The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father” and it was foretold that the government would be upon His shoulders (Isaiah 9:6). This Fulsills the Isaiah 22 prophecy perfectly. But neither Peter nor anyone else should ever use ‘Father’ as a religious title, because Jesus has forbidden this (Matthew 23:7-10).
Gentlemen, please take notice that everything I've said points us to Jesus Himself, because I believe the authority of the church is in Him alone. But we can discuss that later if anyone wishes.
Hi Randy,
You must have posted your last comment while I was preparing mine, so I thought I’d answer a question you raised:
I noticed the absence of any reference to the rock and the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. The image does not really fit with the idea that the import of this statement will die when Peter dies. There is a blessing here that extends as long as the church is battling the forces of hell.
I mentioned the rock in my own comment, but here’s the part about the gates of hell not prevailing:
"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.”
(Rev 12:11)
The ‘word of their testimony’ by which they overcome the devil was the same as Peter’s word of testimony: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. When we believe in Jesus and confess Him, we abide in Christ, the true rock; the rains may fall and floods may rise, but they will not prevail against us because we are founded in Him (see my comment, above).
Oh yes, one more part about ‘mixing metaphor’s (in answer to Sproul). It s rare, but Jesus has occasionally done this. For example, He is both the good shepherd and the door of the sheep, in John 10:1-11.
Gregory,
Sarah and I really miss you, too. One day, I hope we can all get together for a pig-roast, or something equally arbitrary!
When it comes to non sola fide et gratia, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that phrase.
Well, the phrase is contrasted with sola fide, which I'm sure you know means, "faith alone." Hence my question was meant to say, Why do Catholics take "faith alone" to mean "not faith and grace alone"? Does that make more sense?
The way I understand Catholic Doctrine, "Grace", bibilically speaking, is the life of God that is given to us from God, that energises our lives and spurs on our journey to sanctification.
Yes. Luther's "Great Confession" of 1528 would agree with that understanding. In theology, it is known as the monergism of grace. That is, the sole working of the holy, Triune God.
Our response to His grace is our faith that manifests itself in our actions.
Not to be nit-picky, but could you please define what you mean by 'actions', please?
Grace comes from God, and is initially independent of our faith or our works...
Well stated, Greg! Naturally then, grace is the objective element of God's action in our lives. Grace births faith.
Faith, on the other hand, is our response to God's grace.
You're starting to fall off here, friend. A quick explanation: faith is a gift given by God so that we can correctly respond to His grace. It is not 'ours,' as a possession would be; we can live, and move within it, however. In that sense, faith is objectively given by God's grace, and subjectively lived out in us toward Him.
...our faith can never be separated from our works. As James clearly points out, a faith that has no expression in obedience to God is no faith at all. Mere mental assent to truths about God is not enough to save (James 2:14-26, esp. v. 17 and vs. 19).
This statement combined with the one above is why I need you to define 'action', or 'works' to me. It is not because I don't have an idea of those things myself, but to be fair in dialogue, I would like to know what you are thinking such pivitol vocabulary actually means.
Thus, we say that sola gratia saves, because without it, all the faith and the good deeds in the world are for naught ("Filthy rags" according to Isaiah 64:5 [v.6 in the KJV]). Yet, through Christ's grace alone, our faith and works are energised and become meritorious, as He Himself rewards us for the gifts that He has given, as St. Augustine said.
I'm almost entirely on board with you here, Greg; I just need some clarification on the terms I've asked about above. That will give me a better scan and scope of the excellent teachings you espouse.
The Lord bless you and keep you.
Christopher J. Freeman
Loren,
Oh yes, one more part about ‘mixing metaphor’s (in answer to Sproul). It s rare, but Jesus has occasionally done this. For example, He is both the good shepherd and the door of the sheep, in John 10:1-11.
You have identified an interesting passage, to be sure, but I'm not sure it's technically a mixing of metaphors so much as it is a 'heaping' of metaphors, if you will. If I understand correctly (and it's quite possible I don't), mixing metaphors is the action of importing the element of one metaphor into an already working metaphor. For example, "grabbing the bull by the hand," or "you can lead a horse to water but you can't throw out the baby."
In the passage you mention, I think Jesus was purposefully including both metaphors to complete a very definite layout of His providence. Namely, He is the Shepherd because He leads us, and He is the Door because He hems us in and provides us with the proper portal to the pastures we need.
Does that make sense to you?
Christopher J. Freeman
I get you Christopher. Thanks for stating it more precisely.
Loren,
The Petra/Petros argument is a real reach. Most protestant theologians will not even try and defend it. It is fails on so many levels. First of all Jesus is blessing Peter. If you interpete the text this way it really puts an insult into the middle of the blessing. It would be aa strange thing in our culture but even stranger in hebrew culture.
Secondly, Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter. How could Jesus make it any clearer who he was talking about? Saying Simon, son of Jonah is already adding emphasis since everyone there was familar with Simon. Changing the name is huge. You think of changing Abrahm to Abraham, Jacob ot Isreal, Saul to Paul. These are major events in these people's lives that went with the change. Same thing with Peter. This blessing from Jesus defines the rest of his life.
Sproul is not alone. Even amoung protestants the consensus is that the petra/petros argument is not tennable.
wow lots of comments ...this must be a cool blog
Randy,
How do you accomidate for the two different words used in the Original Greek?
I by no means can read Greek, but I can deffinately see that these two words are distinctly different as I am right now staring at a Greek Interlinear Bible Ed. Jay P. Green Sr. from Sovereign Grace Publishers Lafayette, Ind.
It has a litteral Translation of each and every Hebrew and Greek word directly under the original text. Again, the two words translated as rock, are very visibally different, just as their and there to a person who doesn't speak English are visibally different. This is an imperfect example because the words have completely different meanings as in they are not even similar. However, I think the point is clear. So I ask again, how do you explain the two different words? Which have slightly different meanings.
Also, I don't think this detracts from a blessing at all. The changing of Simon's name to Peter is a blessing, but Christ is saying, don't forget what is truly important here.
We are all created Worshipers, it has been revealed to you that I am the One and Only Son of the Living God. God's Highest Agenda if you will, is the Exaltation of Christ, and here Christ is reminding Peter of this at the same time as He is blessing Peter along with the other Disciples. Peter gets a name change and they all get to join God in His work!
But realy, I just would like to here a biblical argument for the two different words in the Greek.
Thanks,
In Christ,
David
Bush Breaks Vacation Record
Got a scoop? Email your tips and suggestions to the editor. Premium Blog Ad Blog Ads Classifieds Amazon About The Site Taegan D. Goddard is the creator of Political Wire, a political column updated around the ...
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a enterprise car rental code site/blog. It pretty much covers enterprise car rental code related stuff.
Hi Randy,
Based on what I've read, Sproul is pretty much alone; I've never before heard a protestant disagree with the exegesis I gave. But in any case it wouldn't matter. What Jesus said doesn't need validation by any man, but He speaks for Himself:
"Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man who . . . laid the foundation on the rock" (Luke 6:47-48)
The Greek word for 'rock', used here, is 'Petra', the same word used when He says 'on this rock I will build my Church'. No mix-ups, everything matches just fine. And I agree with what David said about the blessing.
By the way, I wanted to mention that I do have a world of respect for Peter.
Man oh man! 20 comments since Thursday! I was out all day yesterday painting the new apartment, and was way too tired when I got home to even look at this. Yikes! Glad I didn't!
Okay, first thing, to all the anonymous posters who "really like my blog" thanks, I appreciate it. However, if you're just trying to advertise stuff, please don't. If you want me to advertise stuff, I won't. Just so we're clear.
If I get any further "junk comments", they will be deleted out of hand.
Second order of business, I'm going to reply to Chris Freeman's questions, since they're easier and a lot less...involved at the moment.
Gregory,
Sarah and I really miss you, too. One day, I hope we can all get together for a pig-roast, or something equally arbitrary!
Mmm...pig! Sounds good!
Me: "When it comes to non sola fide et gratia, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that phrase."
Well, the phrase is contrasted with sola fide, which I'm sure you know means, "faith alone." Hence my question was meant to say, Why do Catholics take "faith alone" to mean "not faith and grace alone"? Does that make more sense?
A little...I think. And I think, trying to understand the question better, Catholics deny that construction because we believe in the importance of works, but works that proceed from God's grace and are partnered with our faith.
Me: "The way I understand Catholic Doctrine, "Grace", bibilically speaking, is the life of God that is given to us from God, that energises our lives and spurs on our journey to sanctification."
Yes. Luther's "Great Confession" of 1528 would agree with that understanding. In theology, it is known as the monergism of grace. That is, the sole working of the holy, Triune God.
Right, and Catholics agree with that part of the formulation.
Me: "Our response to His grace is our faith that manifests itself in our actions."
Not to be nit-picky, but could you please define what you mean by 'actions', please?
The works, or lack thereof, that reflect on and demonstrate our faith. For example, how well we live out the beatitudes (or, how well we try to, since we all still fail. The point is, is that if there is no effort to live according to Jesus' command, then we truly do not have faith in Him, according to both He and James. I hope that clears it up--further definition will follow below, I'm sure.
Me: "Grace comes from God, and is initially independent of our faith or our works..."
Well stated, Greg! Naturally then, grace is the objective element of God's action in our lives. Grace births faith.
Yes! But it also births the good works which must accompany our faith.
Me: "Faith, on the other hand, is our response to God's grace."
You're starting to fall off here, friend. A quick explanation: faith is a gift given by God so that we can correctly respond to His grace. It is not 'ours,' as a possession would be; we can live, and move within it, however. In that sense, faith is objectively given by God's grace, and subjectively lived out in us toward Him.
If I say, "That's what I meant," will you believe me? ;) I hope so, because it's true. But this is why Catholics say "Sola Gratia" rather than "Sola Gratia et fide" or whatever you said :p (Really need to learn Latin). God's Grace begins this whole process of sanctification in our lives. We respond in faith, through our works, but that faith, and those works, are themselves the result of God's grace in our lives (Philippians 2:13--"It is God who, for His own generous purpose, gives you the intention and the powers to act").
Since God's grace in our lives is completely from Him, and remains from Him, if I can put it so, we say "sola gratia". But even though the ability to have faith and the ability to do the works comes from Him in that very grace, the faith we exercise, and the works we do, are mysteriously credited to us ourselves. We actually come to own those works and that faith--even though they are themselves always and only gifts from God. Thus St. Augustine said, "What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?" (Letters, 194:5:19).
Me: "...our faith can never be separated from our works. As James clearly points out, a faith that has no expression in obedience to God is no faith at all. Mere mental assent to truths about God is not enough to save (James 2:14-26, esp. v. 17 and vs. 19)."
This statement combined with the one above is why I need you to define 'action', or 'works' to me. It is not because I don't have an idea of those things myself, but to be fair in dialogue, I would like to know what you are thinking such pivitol vocabulary actually means.
Our actions, or works, or good deeds, are those actions by which we follow the commands of Jesus, being His disciples, and walking according to what St. Paul calls the "Law of faith". For example, following the 10 Commandments, the beatitudes, etc. We are called to be holy, and holiness expresses itself in actions.
Me: "Thus, we say that sola gratia saves, because without it, all the faith and the good deeds in the world are for naught ("Filthy rags" according to Isaiah 64:5 [v.6 in the KJV]). Yet, through Christ's grace alone, our faith and works are energised and become meritorious, as He Himself rewards us for the gifts that He has given, as St. Augustine said."
I'm almost entirely on board with you here, Greg; I just need some clarification on the terms I've asked about above. That will give me a better scan and scope of the excellent teachings you espouse.
I hope I cleared things up. My last paragraph that you quoted above is what I reiterated and expanded on in this post--that our faith and our works have their origin in God's Grace, that those same faith and works are a necessary and free response from us to that same grace (which gives or enables us to have said faith and works, and finally, that the faith and works, which initially come from God, but which we must exercise as a free response to Him, are indeed necessary for our salvation.
Put negatively, without God's grace operating in our lives, all the faith we could muster, and all the works we could do, would be worth nothing, because without the life-giving power of Grace, they are dead. That is why "Sola gratia non sola fide". If I knew more Latin, I'd say "Grace alone manifested in faith and works", or something like that.
I really hope that clears stuff up :D
God bless!
One last point I wanted to make, then I’ll be quiet for awhile. It’s actually sort of a new subject, having to do with the authority of Moses as an example for authority today.
Authority is a subject that is taking on a new emphasis in various Protestant churches. Christian leaders like to point to the example of Moses to bolster their own position: “Don’t ever question the authority of leadership. If you do, look what can happen to you. Plagues, disaster, disease, defeat – when the man of God speaks, he is to be obeyed without question!” In their examples from the life of Moses, they'll point to the things that happened to Aaron and Miriam, the rebellion of Korah, or Dathan and Abiram. But in doing this, they’re missing the point:
Their analogy assumes that Moses represents church leadership. However, in the true analogy, God intended Moses to represent Christ Himself:
"The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear . . .”
(Deut 18:15)
And if you’ll notice, the ones rebelling against the true authority of ‘Christ’ were none other than . . . the ‘church leaders’. Aaron and Miriam: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?" (Num 12:2) Or Korah and the Levites, along with Dathan and Abiram: “You take too much upon yourself! We are holy too!” In each case they wanted a larger role for themselves, to take away his authority and exercise it, and thus to seek a lesser role for ‘Christ’ Himself. This resulted in the disasters mentioned. In fact, the analogy is that some of them went to hell in punishment (Numbers 16:29-31)
Furthermore, when the people sided with the ‘church leaders’ and murmured against ‘Christ’, they were likewise struck (Num 16:41-48).
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?”
(Jer 5:31)
I felt like I was supposed to share that for somebody, I hope it helps.
Regarding the Petrine issue:
Reading through Acts 15 again, I have to say I agree with Peter's viewpoint over against Loren's. Ecclesiologically speaking, Loren, all the Apostles held authority, but throughout the entire New Testament, as has been argued elsewhere even by you in this thread, Peter was primary among them. Thus, when he spoke at the Jerusalem council, all the people stopped their discussion to listen to Paul and Barnabbas (whom, I assume from the text, had themselves been caught up in the huge debate [vv. 4-7]). James, with the authority of an Apostle, gives his verdict, and recommends that a letter be sent to spell it out in the Churches outside Jerusalem--but he himself did not write the letter. It was a concilliar letter--from all the Apostles (and, notably, the Holy Spirit [v.28]).
With regard to Isaiah 32, the prophecy of the King and Princes does not mention brothers at all (and notably, the Bishops are referred to as the Princes of the Church--Jesus is King, but, as you said, in the absense of the King, the princes have authority to rule in His stead). Yes, princes are brothers to the King (in a scenario like this) but we all, through Christ, are adopted children into the Family of God. God is our Father, and Christ our elder brother! (cf. Romans 8:14-17) In this family of God, He has given some particular and specific roles of leadership to fill (Ephesians 4:11) so that the family may grow up perfect. Primary in the list are the Apostles, and their successors, the Bishops (I gave a list of references above that indicate Apostolic Succession, that has yet to be dealt with--so don't say I'm pulling that out of nowhere!)
James could be construed to have greater authority in the sense that you portrayed, except that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary has yet to be disproved. And since, in Roman adoption (like our own--I should know) the adopted is regarded as completely the same as a biological child, with the same rights and status, the prince argument applied to James seems to fail.
Randy's list of references serves to prove Peter's primacy throughout the New Testament (not solely in conjunction with James, the brother of the Lord), whereas James, who hardly gets much mention in Scripture, is only in any way equated with Peter on possibly 2 occasions (Galatians 2:9, the context isn't clear whether this is James, the Lord's brother, or John's brother--since he was still alive at the time this first incident occurred [Acts 9:26-30]. James here could have been mentioned first because he was the first Apostle to be martyred [Acts 12:2] and we all know the respect martyrs were paid!) Therefore the case is far from clear-cut, let alone proven. The fact that Peter is mentioned nearly twice as many times as James in this passage indicates something as well! The Acts 15 incident doesn't get mentioned in Galatians until verse 11. Moreover, James, brother of the Lord, is scarecely mentioned in Acts before Acts 15! In any case, it's still a big stretch to indicate he had more authority than Peter. The fact that the Early Church Fathers never saw it that way adds further credence to that fact.
That's all for this post. I'll comment on the two articles from David in a second.
125 posts!
Not to pour Gasoline on a Bonfire, But I have a couple of questions:
1st. What is the Scriptural basis for the ‘Apostolic Succession’ of the popes? I see Isaiah 22 being used as the basis that Peter ‘was’ the first Pope - but Eliakim was not given the authority to delegate or bequeath his authority to anyone else.
2nd. Why, if one accepts ‘Apostolic Succession’, is the succession through Peter? According to various documents, Peter was the first pope. Next was Linus of Tuscany (a disciple of Paul) 67 - 76, then Anacletus 79 - 91, Clement I 91 -100.
Wait a minute…The apostolic succession should be through the Apostle John. He was alive, presumably well, and disposed to matters of the church as attested to by these entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“John took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the Church.”
“in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the Church.”
“With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96).”
the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
That ‘Clement 1’ took authority in writing a letter of reprimand to Corinth does not signify he ‘had’ the authority to do so.
Why would Linus, a disciple of Paul, have more authority than an Apostle?
LOL Loren, you just keep taking the round-numbered posts! I'll reply to your comments later...much later, it seems...
For now, David's articles:
Power of the Keys
Question: Only Peter, not the other apostles, was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This means that Peter had supreme authority in the church.
Answer: The Lord Jesus told Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Catholic apologists often allude to this passage as important biblical evidence for the papacy.
And it is, but it admittedly does not prove the papacy. It proves Peter's primacy in the Church, which lends a lot of weight to the papacy.
Undoubtedly the Lord entrusted Peter with authority in the church; yet he was never made a pope.
That seems to be begging the question--a question, which in the "question" above, was not actually asked! Just a thought.
To prove the papacy it must be shown that Jesus delegated supreme power to Peter to rule over the entire church, and that this authority is passed on to his alleged successors, the bishops of Rome.
John 21:15-17, where Peter is told by Jesus to feed and tend the sheep (and Peter is the only one told by Jesus to do so) shows Jesus delegating "supreme" authority. So does Peter's prominent, authoritative role all throughout the book of Acts. Apostolic succession was demonstrated above, and has gone unanswered.
Catholic apologists note that since the Lord gave the "keys of the kingdom" to the apostle Peter alone, he must have a unique and superior authority. A Catholic writer states: "Since 'the keys' were confided to Peter alone, we understand that our Lord conferred upon Peter a particular authority within the whole company of the Apostles." [1]
Yes, I would concur with that notion. No one else was given the keys.
Was Peter's authority really "particular" or, to be more exact, "superior"? No, not really, for the Lord goes on to explain how this authority is exercised, saying, "and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Elsewhere, the Lord gave the same authority of binding and loosing to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). Therefore Peter had an equivalent (not superior) authority to the other apostles.
The Catholic Church teaches this, that all the Apostles, and their successors, have binding authority in the Church. But the fact remains, Peter alone was given the keys. His is the last word. If, for example, two bishops disagree over a doctrinal matter (as happened frequently in the Early Church), the successor of Peter had the last word and settled the dispute. The authority of the other bishops is dependent on Peter's, and Peter's is dependent on Christ's.
In Matthew 16, Peter is representative of the other apostles and all the Church, who follow him in confessing Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Amen.
Therefore the whole Church shares the power of the keys.
Amen--so long as they are in union with Peter, their representative.
Sometimes Matthew 16 is compared to Isaiah 22:22: "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open." One Catholic apologist argues, "Christ also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), a direct reference to Is. 22:22 where the servant Eliakim is granted, using the symbol of the keys, the authority of his master to become the Prime Minister, as it were, of the Davidic Kingdom. Here in Matthew we have Christ using the same language and the same symbol of the keys to grant His authority to His servant Peter, making Peter the Prime Minister of His Kingdom." [2]
It is doubtful whether Matthew 16 is at all a direct reference to Isaiah 22. For example, Isaiah speaks about "the key" (singular) while Matthew of "the keys" (plural).
Could that not merely indicate that "the [earthly] Kingdom of David" pales in comparison to "The Kingdom of Heaven"?
There is in fact a direct reference to Isaiah 22 in the New Testament and it is found in Revelations 3:7: "These things says He who is holy, He who is true, 'He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.'" The person holding the "key of David" is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Peter or the bishop of Rome.
Of course, but Jesus, as King, always holds the Key, even when He bestows that key on His steward or vicar, Peter (and his successors).
While it is true that Christ did confer authority on Peter, it is also true that this authority was not unique to Peter, nor was it supreme over the other apostles and the entire church.
Biblically and historically, that assertion has not been bourne out.
The power of the keys was granted to the whole church to be exercised in the forgiveness of sins.
Right, just as John 20:23 states. But what Protestant churches actually practice that sacrament?
The apostle Peter was the first to open the way of salvation through the preaching of the gospel, first to the Jews at Pentecost and later on to the Gentiles at Cornelius house.
But the preaching of the Gospel is not the full extent of the Keys-authority.
The church continues to exercise that authority through the gospel, proclaiming forgiveness to those who believe in Christ, and withholding forgiveness to unbelievers.
Really? Which churches (other than the Catholics, and perhaps the Orthodox) actually still "withhold forgiveness"? How do they do this? In the Catholic Church, it is done, or not done, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and in extreme cases, in excommunication. What Protestant Churches do that?
The church is also duty bound to discipline obstinate sinful members, and the happy privilege to restore penitents to full fellowship.
This authority has been undermined by Protestantism and the multiplication of denominations. Discipline someone, and they'll jump churches! In the Catholic Church, to have been excommunicated is to no longer be able to participate in the life of the sacraments--to no longer have Communion in the fullest sense with Christ! In what way does Protestantism approach that level of authority without appealing to a visible authority in the position of Peter?
Such was the interpretation of the power of the keys by the Church Fathers.
And of the Catholic Church today.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits:
"In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven." [3]
Amen!
The Fathers did not limit the power of the keys to Peter or to his successors. They cited the "keys" as the prerogative of the church, not the exclusive power of any individual, whether the bishop of Rome or anyone else.
This is a bit misleading, since those same Fathers defined "The Church" in direct reference to unity with Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
They also interpreted this authority in reference to the forgiveness of sins, as the scriptural text does, and not as supreme jurisdictional authority of one bishop over the entire church, as the Roman Church does.
This is also a bit of a misrepresentation. We do both. So did the Fathers.
The following excerpt from Augustine illustrates the Father's interpretation of the keys. He writes:
"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church." [4]
Augustine also mentions Peter's authoritative position in the Church in that regard.
Writing in the fifth century, Augustine knew nothing of the Roman Catholic claim that Peter or the bishops of Rome had the exclusive right to the power of the keys.
That's patently false:
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Augustine saw Peter as the representative of the Church; therefore the keys are given by Christ to His Church.
Yes, and that Church authority is only authoritative when it is in line with Peter, its head, as demonstrated by the numerous quotes from St. Augustine above.
Moreover, the Church binds and looses people from sin through the personal response of faith and repentance of the individual, on account of which a person is received in the Church. That is what Evangelicals believe.
Yes, but it is not what the Church has historically believed. It is a novel interpretation from the Reformation.
Roman bishops have usurped this passage and gave it a novel interpretation to bolster their proud claims to universal and supreme jurisdiction. This idea is foreign to the Fathers, and more importantly, it contrary to sound exegesis of the biblical text.
I wholeheartedly disagree, and I would contend that so do the Fathers themselves.
___________________________________
Insight into Bible Prophecy #86
Keys Promised to Peter
by David Vaughn Elliott
He who holds keys controls entry. Is Peter standing at the gates of heaven, deciding who enters? No, that is just sacrilegious joke material. Well then, will Peter be standing at the gates of a future millennium reign of Christ, deciding who enters? I never heard of any premillennialist teaching that.
What, then, is Jesus telling Peter in Matthew 16:18,19? "I will build My church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." Notice 1) In practically the same breath, with no hint of changing subjects, Jesus speaks of the church and the kingdom, apparently equating them.
This has always been the universal interpretation of that passage. The Church is the Kingdom. I think I quoted Augustine above up a few comments (about the wheat and chaff) to that very regard. If not, then I omitted it from the citation.
2) Peter would use the keys to bind "on earth," thus it was to be done during his lifetime.
Yes, and to the lifetimes of his successors.
Since Jesus does not fail, His promises amount to prophecy. Thus this is a prophecy about the kingdom. The prophecy says that Peter will open the way into the kingdom and that he will make binding decrees regarding the kingdom.
So far, a very Catholic interpretation.
Even futurist-premillennialists apply this prophecy to Peter's earthly ministry beginning on the day of Pentecost. Thus they inadvertently confess that the church is the kingdom and that the kingdom of God began on the day of Pentecost in the year 30 A.D.
Since Jesus promised Peter "the keys of the kingdom," it is no coincidence that Peter was the leading spokesman on the day of Pentecost. Keys open doors. Once open, others can enter. Thus, Christ designated Peter to unlock the doors, telling people how they could enter the kingdom: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
Amen!
The doors of the kingdom have been open for 2000 years. Those who listen to the holder of the keys are privileged to enter.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The holder of the Keys, notably, is the Church, in union with the successor of Peter, the representative of the Church, the Pope.
Welcome back, Slave. I'd love to stay and chat, but I have to get ready for Mass tonight.
I'm reading the first reading.
God has a wonderful sense of timing and humour:
The first reading of Scripture at Mass tonight? Isaiah 22. The Gospel? Matthew 16.
LOL
I'll be around after Church!
loren said...
Thanks for your patience on the Matthew 16 question. First, here is the passage itself:
>He said to them, "But who do you say that I am? "Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
(Matt 16:15-18)<
The Greek word for ‘Peter’ is ‘Petros’ which means a small stone, a piece from a larger rock (Strong’s 4074), But the ‘rock’ on which the church is built is a different Greek word, ‘Petra’ (Strong’s 4073) which means a mass of rock, like the Rock of Gibraltar. Vine’s explains:
Petra ^4073^ denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice).
In other words, Peter has recognized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that Jesus Himself is the true rock and foundation of the church:
>“For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?” (2 Sam 22:32);<
>"Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man who . . . laid the foundation on the rock" (Gr: Petros) Luke 6:47-48<
>“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11)<
We've been through this at POLD, but for the benefit of others, in Jesus' day, the distinction between "petra" and "petros" did not exist anymore. That came earlier in the development of the Greek language (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368). The distinction in this passage is simply that, like French, the Greek language has masculine and feminine nouns. "Petra" happens to be a feminine noun. When Matthew was recording Jesus' exchange, translating it into Greek, at this point, he couldn't very well call Peter, "Petra", which would be a woman's name. As I noted at POLD, that would be like me calling you "Lauren" or "Lorraine".
For more, read"Peter the Rock" in the Catholic Answers library.
Because Simon has recognized this truth about Jesus, he has gotten ‘a piece of the rock’ (to use the old ad line). Nothing in this passage makes him the first pope, it simply means he’s been recognized as a part of the church, just like anyone else who would recognize Jesus as the Christ.
This is a radical oversimplification of the issue, even by Protestant standards. Most Protestant scholars (like Carson and Sproul, among many others) acknowledge that a very real delegation of authority was given in this incident, even if they don't go so far as to admit the papacy. Simply saying that Peter was a part of the Church denies the entire intent of this passage.
Arguments against: although this was written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. And in Aramaic it probably read: “you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church.” Thus, only one word was really used, and this offers a direct identification with Peter.
Answers: Like most languages, Aramaic has two distinct words for a small rock and a larger rock. The word for the larger rock is Shu'a, and for the smaller rock it is Ke'pha.
“A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church. . . The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
For further elaboration on this perspective, click here.
This reconstruction only works if in fact there was a real distinction between petra and petros. Since that hasn't been proven, and is in fact contended by most modern Greek scholars (unless they have a very large axe to grind against the papacy), and since we don't actually have the Aramaic text, your reconstruction is somewhat of a stretch (though, admittedly, in that case, so is the Kepha/kepha "reconstruction". The point is to show how it would have sounded without a gender change, though).
Furthermore, given what is at stake in this verse, let’s examine the Lord’s choice of words. He could simply have said: ‘You are Petros, and upon this petros I will build My church’ and this would have left us no doubt in favor of Peter. But instead, He chose two different words. If it was actually one and the same word in the spoken Aramaic, it could have been translated that way into the Greek as well, but it wasn’t (and remember that the Greek version was inspired, so this was not a human oversight.)
But this completely ignores the Greek language and masculine/feminine pronouns involved in the grammar.
Or even more simply Jesus could have said: “You are Peter, and on you I will build My Church’ and that would have ended all debate in favor of Peter as well. It would also have been easier for Him to say it that way, and more natural to do so if that was His intention. So why didn’t He do that? Why choose two different words if His intention was to focus on one person, Peter? “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” (1 Cor 14:33).
Simply put, saying it the way you propose would have caused absolutely no reason for the change in Simon's name. It would have been pointless, except for the play on words used. The only reason that the text is "confusing" at all is because you desperately don't want it to say what it says.
Since God is not the author of confusion, He chooses this wording for the purpose of clarification. He made a distinction between Peter (the small stone) and the larger issue of Himself (the large stone) because we needed to grasp this distinction in order to understand His meaning properly.
Again, there really is no distinction.
In saying this, I do not deny the prominent role that Peter played in the early church. It’s just that it’s not the point.
Between the Rock, the Keys, and the Gates of Hell in this passage, I'd say that the point is clear about Jesus' intent, and your rationalising it away is a vain attempt to avoid Petrine authority.
In the same passage, in Matthew 16, Jesus says to Peter “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:19)
Argument: Peter becoming the first pope is a fulfillment of Isaiah 22, in which the key of the house of David was give to Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who symbolized Peter. The prophecy foretells that Peter would be made the steward of the church, a father to the church, and the word ‘pope’ means ‘father’.
Answer: Please notice in Isaiah 22:22 that there is only one ‘key’ to the house of David (rather than the ‘keys’ Jesus mentions in this passage), and that Jesus alone has this particular key: ”And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens" (Rev 3:7). So this could not be the same as the ‘keys’ He mentions in Matthew 16.
No, of course not. The fact that the exchange was repeated nearly verbatim means nothing! The fact that the Church has historically understood it this way is irrelevant
Those keys are for everyone who believes in Him:
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” (Col 3:17)
I don't see the connection between giving Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (no small phrase) and Colossians 3:17. But the fact remains that Jesus never said anything remotely similar to giving the Keys of anything to anyone but Peter.
The prophecy in Isaiah 22 was actually not symbolic of Peter, but symbolic of Christ Himself. Jesus specifically told us that He has the key of David; and the rest of the context contains graphic imagery of His crucifixion (v 23-25).
How are verses 23-25 prophetic of Christ? Verse 25: "That day, declares Yahweh Sabaoth, the nail driven into a firm place will give way, will be torn out and fall. And the whole load hanging on it will be lost. For Yahweh has spoken." The passage refers to successors of Eliakim who would not be as faithful as he had, and their wickedness contributed directly to the Exile. Otherwise, it directly contradicts statements of Jesus about not losing anyone (cf. John 17:12).
Furthermore, Jesus was called “The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father” and it was foretold that the government would be upon His shoulders (Isaiah 9:6). This Fulsills the Isaiah 22 prophecy perfectly.
I don't actually think Isaiah 22 is a "prophecy" as such, but a "type".
But neither Peter nor anyone else should ever use ‘Father’ as a religious title, because Jesus has forbidden this (Matthew 23:7-10).
That same texts prohibits the use of the term "teacher" as well, but we still call teachers, teachers--even religious ones. We call people with theological doctorates "doctors", even though "doctor" is the Latin word for "teacher".
The passage is a hyperbole (exaggeration in order to make a point) similar to that in Matt 5:29.
Furthermore, the Apostles frequently used father-son relationships to refer to spiritual offspring. Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
For more, check out "Call No Man Father?" in the Catholic Answers library.
Gentlemen, please take notice that everything I've said points us to Jesus Himself, because I believe the authority of the church is in Him alone. But we can discuss that later if anyone wishes.
Of course it is, but as we've said repeatedly, Jesus granting His authority to Peter in no way limits or excludes His own. Peter's authority is drawn specifically and explicitly from that of Christ. Without Christ, Peter wouldn't be anything, and neither would be the Church.
The problem with Protestant interpretations Scripture and of Catholic ideas is that they too often use an "either/or" hermeneutic, when the answer is "both/and".
>"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.”
(Rev 12:11)<
The ‘word of their testimony’ by which they overcome the devil was the same as Peter’s word of testimony: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. When we believe in Jesus and confess Him, we abide in Christ, the true rock; the rains may fall and floods may rise, but they will not prevail against us because we are founded in Him (see my comment, above).
But this still does not contradict the Petrine foundation of the text. Again, "both/and". Our testimony is made in unity with his, and so, he acts as our representative.
Oh yes, one more part about ‘mixing metaphor’s (in answer to Sproul). It s rare, but Jesus has occasionally done this. For example, He is both the good shepherd and the door of the sheep, in John 10:1-11.
Chris Freeman did a good job answering this objection. I'd stand by his response.
Hi Gregory,
I’ve been thinking about your explanation of Peter’s name ‘Petros’ simply being the Masculine form of ‘Petra’, and I put that together with some things you said in some other places. In my opinion it still didn’t add up, so I did some more research.
First, you’ve stated that there was no longer an essential difference between the two words ‘Petra’ and ‘Petros’ in the Greek language by that time; they were simply a masculine and feminine form of the same thing. If that is so, then why did Jesus not avoid all of the confusion and simply say, ‘You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build my church’? Why use the two different words at all? Unless it was his intention, even at the time, to highlight an important distinction.
I also looked for information to verify that the two words had lost their distinction, except for the gender, but I came up empty. I’ll take your word for it anyway, but I do want to mention that Vine’s, etc., still make a pretty big case for this distinction, if it’s all for nothing. I gave Vine’s definition above.
Second. I also did some checking on the masculine and feminine forms of that word. To render ‘Petra’ into a masculine form, a better choice of words would have been petras, petrou, or even petra itself. Because the two words still mean two different things: one is a small stone (Petros) and the other is a large, immovable bedrock or cliff (Petra).
In fact the term ‘Petra’ is used in reference to Jesus Himself several times in the NT, obviously with the masculine intention of the word – which should speak very loudly in itself: “Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man building . . . on the rock (Petra) “and that rock (Petra) was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4)
Third. You mentioned earlier (on POLD) that we must bear in mind that Jesus spoke to the apostles in Aramaic. I did some checking, and found there was no corresponding loss of distinction between Ke’pha and Shu’a in that language. Ke’pha means a small, movable stone, same as Petros, and Shu’a means a large mass of rock, like bedrock, same as Petra. So in the spoken Aramaic, Jesus fully intended them as two different words, and the Greek records them as such in order to faithfully convey this distinction. So either way, we’re back to the distinction between the two words.
To check out all of these conclusions, click here, and also this page will lead to some additional links where some more of the information may be found. I even dug up the old theory that Matthew’s gospel might have originally been written in Hebrew, but I saw that Eusebius had debunked that as a myth. For further information on that, click here. This, too, includes some further links.
By the way, I also kept my eyes open for Randy’s claim that Protestant theologians have largely abandoned the Petra/Petros argument that I’ve outlined, but instead I’ve found almost universal agreement -- right down to the Messianic Jews making the same points.
Okay, I'll give a brief response to Loren's last post, then continue to "catch up".
The distinction between Petra/Petros:
"[W]hy did Jesus not avoid all of the confusion and simply say, ‘You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build my church’? Why use the two different words at all? Unless it was his intention, even at the time, to highlight an important distinction.
Because "Petros" was only used as a proper name, not the noun for Rock, which was "Petra", so if Jesus had to say it in any way that made sense and didn't involve the gender distinction, it would have been "You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my church." But then, as I said, that would be rather insulting to poor Simon (and the band Petra would have been under even more flak in Christian circles for being a Catholic metal band! LOL Sorry, you'll have to forgive my quirky sense of humour. Hopefully at least "Mark 1:17" David chuckled!)
The only time in the Bible that the word "Petros" is used is as Peter's proper name. If it had in fact been the common word for small stone, I am sure there would have been plenty of opportunities for its usage (but rather, it uses "lithos"; more on that below). According to Strong's, the definition isn't significantly different from "petra".
Petros:
Petra:
According to Strong's "biblical usage" and Thayer's definition, they're both "Rock" or "Stone". The main difference is that Petros is only ever used as a name: Peter's. Thayer reiterates our argument without resolving it.
And, contrary to popular belief, the biblical Greek word for "small stone" is not "petros", or even "petra", but "lithos" (cf. Matt 3:9; 4:3; 4:6; 7:9; 24:2; 27:60, 66; 28:2; Mark 5:5; 13:1, 2; 15:46; 16:3,4; Luke 3:8; 4:3; 4:11; 11:11; 19:40, 44; 21:5, 6; 22:41; 24:2; John 8:7; 8:59; 10:31; 20:21; Acts 17:29; 1 Cor 3:12; 2 Cor 3:7; 1 Peter 2:5.
Notably, "lithos" is used to distinguish from "petra" in the case of Jesus' burial. The tomb was "of hewn rock" (petra), and the "tombstone" was "lithos". "Lithos", in the Bible, is sometimes equated to "petra", as when Peter calls Jesus the chief cornerstone (lithos) in 1 Peter 2:4, etc. But petra is always distinguished from lithos. Petros, on the other hand, is only ever equated with petra, and only in one text (our disputed one), and always exclusively used as Peter's name.
Therefore, it cannot be supported that there is any distinction, or else Jesus would not have named Peter "Petros", but "Lithos", and our 1st pope's name would have been "St. Lither."
To render ‘Petra’ into a masculine form, a better choice of words would have been petras, petrou, or even petra itself.
I'm not up on my Greek grammar, but if anyone is (Chris?), correct me if I'm wrong, but an 'as' suffix probably has some tense-like connotation. An 'ou' suffix is possessive (similar to our "'s"), and an 'a' ending is feminine. If 'as' has no real meaning, it's probably simply synonymous. But I could be wrong (really shoulda taken Greek in school).
"In fact the term ‘Petra’ is used in reference to Jesus Himself several times in the NT, obviously with the masculine intention of the word – which should speak very loudly in itself."
Yes, but "petra" was never applied to Jesus as a proper name.
For the gender thing, consider this: Jesus' Hebrew/Aramaic name is "Y'shua". It was transliterated into the Greek as "Iesous". But if they were transliterating it more accurately, it should have been something like "Iesoua", but that would have been a feminine form.
For the Aramaic argument to work against me (kepha vs shua) you have to successfully demonstrate that "petros" is fundamentally different from "petra" in the way you describe. Since the Bible never, and I mean never uses it that way, but only as Peter's name, and in relation to the "petra" on which the Church is built (while, on the other hand, "lithos" is used in every instance of "small stones" or "a piece of the rock"), the Aramaic argument fails, and at best shows merely how the sentence would have sounded assuming one position or the other, without the trouble of masculine or feminine pronouns (which is how I used it originally--not saying "kepha" is the only word for rock, but rather saying that "kepha" is a neuter noun that needs no gender adjustment in relation to Peter).
Okay, now back to playing "catch-up".
Looks like I'm more caught up than I thought. This post from David, and one brief one from Loren, and then it's on to Slave's question.
Mark 1:17 said...
Randy,
How do you accomidate for the two different words used in the Original Greek?
Been through that. It's a gender issue. I don't know if the majority of you, being American, know any French, but in the French language nouns are either masculine or feminine. As an anglophone forced to learn French in public school (who later discovered a missionary purpose to it that filled me with motive and desire), the gender-specified words were very troublesome. If it was a masculine pronoun, "Le chien" for example, all the adjectives would have to agree with the noun: "Le grand chien blond" would be a description of a big golden retriever, for example. However, if I wanted to talk about a big blonde lady, she would be "une grande femme blonde". (Le/la = "the" and un/une = "a" in case you were wondering).
Anyway, similar to French, Greek has masculine and feminine nouns. "Petra" is a feminine noun. But to give a man a feminine noun as a name is rather unthinkable (I enjoy calling Loren, "Lauren", to make my point. I hope that doesn't offend you, Loren. It's just such a handy name to use). Thus, the feminine suffix "a" is replaced with the masculine suffix "os".
I by no means can read Greek, but I can deffinately see that these two words are distinctly different as I am right now staring at a Greek Interlinear Bible Ed. Jay P. Green Sr. from Sovereign Grace Publishers Lafayette, Ind.
It has a litteral Translation of each and every Hebrew and Greek word directly under the original text. Again, the two words translated as rock, are very visibally different, just as their and there to a person who doesn't speak English are visibally different. This is an imperfect example because the words have completely different meanings as in they are not even similar. However, I think the point is clear. So I ask again, how do you explain the two different words? Which have slightly different meanings.
One is a proper name for a male "Petros"--which is only ever used in the Bible as Peter's name, and for no other meaning. The other is a feminine Greek word for "Rock".
Also, I don't think this detracts from a blessing at all. The changing of Simon's name to Peter is a blessing, but Christ is saying, don't forget what is truly important here.
I would think that would be obvious from the context: "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in Heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter." The whole point was that Peter's focus on what was important led to the whole blessing that followed.
We are all created Worshipers, it has been revealed to you that I am the One and Only Son of the Living God.
For a second I didn't understand that sentence. Then I figured out that you forgot quotation marks. LOL
God's Highest Agenda if you will, is the Exaltation of Christ, and here Christ is reminding Peter of this at the same time as He is blessing Peter along with the other Disciples. Peter gets a name change and they all get to join God in His work!
Well, yeah. But it's more than a name change for Peter, as every name change in the entire Bible is more. It is a redefining of who that person is.
But realy, I just would like to here a biblical argument for the two different words in the Greek.
Done and done. Next?
loren said...
Hi Randy,
Based on what I've read, Sproul is pretty much alone; I've never before heard a protestant disagree with the exegesis I gave. But in any case it wouldn't matter. What Jesus said doesn't need validation by any man,
Most Protestants, in my mind, special-plead the difference just to deny Petrine authority leading to the papacy--as Sproul himself stated in the article that David cited above. But Sproul is not alone. D.A. Carson, it has been noted, also agrees. So does Jaroslav Pelikan, church historian, who was a dyed-in-the-wool Lutheran until he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. But as you said, men's validation only goes so far. But a few hostile witnesses and a slough of Catholic commentators beginning with the Early Church Fathers are unanimous on this issue, which only became an issue at the time of the Reformation in the first place. That's got to say something.
but He speaks for Himself:
"Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man who . . . laid the foundation on the rock" (Luke 6:47-48)
The Greek word for 'rock', used here, is 'Petra', the same word used when He says 'on this rock I will build my Church'. No mix-ups, everything matches just fine. And I agree with what David said about the blessing.
Yes, but no one denies that Jesus is the Rock. It's just, we deny the Protestant position that Peter is not also the rock, through Jesus and entirely dependent on Him. As David points out, Jesus calls us to participate in His work. He called Peter to a specific place in that work.
By the way, I wanted to mention that I do have a world of respect for Peter.
Just not enough to credit him with the authority Jesus gave him...sorry, couldn't resist.
Hi Gregory,
Unfortunately that still doesn’t answer why the word ‘Petros’ was chosen at all. ‘Stone’ was not anyone’s proper name until it was applied by Jesus to Peter. Therefore, since He’s basically making up a name on this occasion, why choose a name that means ‘a small stone’, if His intention is to show that he is actually the larger bedrock? As I’ve already stated, Petras, Petrou or even Petra could have been used and conveyed this sense. Since He was making up a name anyway, why not match it to His intention – unless that’s exactly what He was doing through the distinction He gave between those words?
As you've noted, ‘Petra’ was never applied to Jesus as a proper name, but that misses the point. 'Petra' as it is used in Matthew 16:18 was not intended as a name, but as a description: and this description was applied to Jesus, to Him only, and to Him repeatedly, and never to Peter at all. The obvious conclusion is that the word refers to Jesus, not Peter.
In fact, in the passage itself, the whole point is the revelation of who Jesus is, and Peter is the one making this point!
As another interesting point, Peter was not the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. That honor fell to Nathanael (John 1:49). The reason it was such a big deal in Matthew 16 is because the Father had granted it as revelation, an unveiling of His Son. It was a whole break-through, spiritual catharsis of the revelation of Christ and who He is! Jesus is explaining the significance of this testimony, as would naturally follow such an event. So how could that catharsis possibly mean that we need to focus on Peter now?
“Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?”
(Gal 3:3)
(No personal offense intended in that quote by the way. Honest).
You also said, "For the Aramaic argument to work against me (kepha vs shua) you have to successfully demonstrate that "petros" is fundamentally different from "petra" in the way you describe.
The difference is in the meaning of the word itself, and demonstrated in the passage itself: I reiterate by quoting Vine’s:
1. petra ^4073^ denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see -Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48- (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, "because it had been well builded"); -Rev. 6:15,16- (cf. -Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6,13-, used illustratively; -1 Cor. 10:4- (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in -Rom. 9:33- and -1 Pet. 2:8-, metaphorically, of Christ; in -Matt. 16:18-, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the apostle, is clear.”
Okay, let's reply to Slave on the Petrine thing, and then go back and hit Loren's post on authority in general.
Unchained Slave said...
Not to pour Gasoline on a Bonfire, But I have a couple of questions:
1st. What is the Scriptural basis for the ‘Apostolic Succession’ of the popes? I see Isaiah 22 being used as the basis that Peter ‘was’ the first Pope - but Eliakim was not given the authority to delegate or bequeath his authority to anyone else.
I went through a bunch of texts above demonstrating apostolic succession. I'll search for them and reproduce them (perhaps with some commentary) again here. But first a note on Eliakim. Isaiah 22 is not a "prophetic" passage of Peter, but a "typological" one, which is subtly different. Basically, the Kingdom of David is a type of the Kingdom of God/Heaven, and things in God's Kingdom are typified in David's Kingdom. Eliakim the Steward is one such type.
As for his succession, Eliakim's succession was a dynastic one, that lasted until, as Isaiah had prophesied in 22:25, his faithless descendents would be uprooted and all that they supported (ie, the Kingdom) would fall (ie, the Exile). In this way, Eliakim serves as something of an antitype (the fulfilment is the opposite of the type, similar to the Adam-Jesus deal). Jesus definitely alludes to Isaiah 22 typologically of Peter's new office, but He says, in contrast to Isaiah, that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church (the Kingdom of Heaven).
On to Apostolic Succession proper:
Acts 1:15-26--Peter declares that someone must succeed Judas Iscariot as an apostle, as prophecied. Matthias is chosen, and in him we have the very first instance of apostolic succession. If apostolic succession was not important, and once the twelve were gone, that's the end of it, why was it so important that Judas' place be filled?
Acts 14:23--As Paul and Barnabas travel back through cities where they had preached, they establish elders (presbyteroi=priests) in each of the churches that they had started, so that in thier absense solid authoritative leadership would reside. This would develop into a distinction between bishop and priest as Christianity grew and there were more than one Church to a city-region. All bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops.
Acts 20:28--When Paul knows that he is going to be imprisoned, he appoints more leaders in the churches, calling them "guardians", to feed the churches over which the Holy Spirit has placed them through Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:27-29--Paul says that at the church in Corinth, there were men there appointed as apostles and given that charism by the Holy Spirit, but that not all are apostles. Paul seems to be speaking of men present at that church, rather than about himself or the 12.
Ephesians 2:20--The foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets (echoing Matthew 16:18, "on this rock") with Jesus Himself as the Cornerstone, solidifying and holding the foundation together.
Ephesians 4:11--A reiteration and expansion of 1 Corinthians 12:27-29
1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:12--(especially 2:7) Note the plural "we" in this passage. Paul calls Timothy and Silas both apostles in verse 7, yet we know Timothy was actually bishop of Ephesus. Silas was in the same rank as well. This goes against the traditional definition of "apostle" given by Protestants, that it is someone sent by God who had a face to face encounter with Christ (which is why there are allegedly no more apostles today). But Timothy and Silas had no such Damascus Road experience that "qualified" Paul, and yet, they are still referred to as apostles.
1 Timothy 3:1-8--Qualifications for the episcopacy
1 Timothy 4:13-14--Reference to the role of a bishop, as well as to Timothy's own ordination, by the consecration and imposition of hands by the priests.
1 Timothy 5:17-22--More instruction in the selection and ordination of priests and bishops.
2 Timothy 2:1-2--Notably in 2 Timothy 2:2, St. Paul not only appoints Timothy as his successor (as bishop at Ephesus) but instructs Timothy to train up others to succeed him!
2nd. Why, if one accepts ‘Apostolic Succession’, is the succession through Peter?
Apostolic succession isn't strictly speaking through Peter, since Paul appointed apostles, as did the other apostles. The succession of Peter refers specifically to the carrying on of the holder of the Keys of Matt 16, the bishop of the See that Peter held when he died (namely, Rome).
According to various documents, Peter was the first pope. Next was Linus of Tuscany (a disciple of Paul) 67 - 76, then Anacletus 79 - 91, Clement I 91 -100.
Yes, these all succeeded Peter as Bishop of Rome.
Wait a minute…The apostolic succession should be through the Apostle John. He was alive, presumably well, and disposed to matters of the church as attested to by these entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“John took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the Church.”
“in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the Church.”
“With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96).”
the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
John wasn't given the Keys of the Kingdom, and so, as much apostolic authority as he had, his was not that specific charism, or gift of the Spirit--though he did, in turn, train up leaders to succeed him. Polycarp is a notable example, who trained up Irenaeus...and so on.
That ‘Clement 1’ took authority in writing a letter of reprimand to Corinth does not signify he ‘had’ the authority to do so.
No. That the letter was listened to and followed does.
Why would Linus, a disciple of Paul, have more authority than an Apostle?
Not more than an apostle. More than the other apostles, and that is simply because he was given the office of Peter, and received his primacy by way of succession. As a bishop, though, as in the case of Timothy and Silas, he was given the mantle of apostolate. That particular apostolate was the See of Rome, which is the Seat of Peter.
I hope that clears things up.
God bless!
loren said...
One last point I wanted to make, then I’ll be quiet for awhile. It’s actually sort of a new subject, having to do with the authority of Moses as an example for authority today.
Authority is a subject that is taking on a new emphasis in various Protestant churches. Christian leaders like to point to the example of Moses to bolster their own position: “Don’t ever question the authority of leadership. If you do, look what can happen to you. Plagues, disaster, disease, defeat – when the man of God speaks, he is to be obeyed without question!” In their examples from the life of Moses, they'll point to the things that happened to Aaron and Miriam, the rebellion of Korah, or Dathan and Abiram. But in doing this, they’re missing the point:
Their analogy assumes that Moses represents church leadership. However, in the true analogy, God intended Moses to represent Christ Himself:
"The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear . . .”
(Deut 18:15)
I don't see how Moses being a type of Church authority is necessarily different from Moses being a type of Christ, especially since the papacy is understood as representing Christ in the Church.
And if you’ll notice, the ones rebelling against the true authority of ‘Christ’ were none other than . . . the ‘church leaders’. Aaron and Miriam: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?" (Num 12:2)
This should hammer home the distinction of levels in authority. In the Catholic Church, this would be like some schismatic guy (whose name escapes me) who was a bishop in the States, who left the Church founding his own pseudo-Catholic sect because Pope John Paul 2 "stole" his papacy. He felt he should have been pope, so he rebelled against the Church when it didn't choose him.
This is why we have a hierarchical structure--so we can clearly point and laugh (just kidding) at such foolishness!
Or Korah and the Levites, along with Dathan and Abiram: “You take too much upon yourself! We are holy too!” In each case they wanted a larger role for themselves, to take away his authority and exercise it, and thus to seek a lesser role for ‘Christ’ Himself. This resulted in the disasters mentioned. In fact, the analogy is that some of them went to hell in punishment (Numbers 16:29-31)
Yes, they were operating under the notion that Moses had spelled out for them, that everyone was a priest "a nation of priests" and applied that similar to the way Protestants apply the notion of the "Priesthood of believers", saying that ordained ministers are different in role, and not in degree, than any other Christian. As in the case of Korah, who was a Levite, but not one of the specifically priestly levites, it was not his role. It again emphasises the hierarchical structure of the Church that it typifies (Eph 4:11).
Furthermore, when the people sided with the ‘church leaders’ and murmured against ‘Christ’, they were likewise struck (Num 16:41-48).
Makes me glad, and a little cautious, that God didn't just out and do the same when the people followed an unbalanced monk who revolted against the Church in the 1500's (sorry, Chris, for that less than generous description of Luther). But then, what would you call the wars, the splits, and the ever-increasing divergence of opinion that has plagued Protestantism since?
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?”
(Jer 5:31)
I felt like I was supposed to share that for somebody, I hope it helps.
It certainly helps solidify my faith in the Catholic faith. Thank you for that. :)
*Sigh*
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
Unfortunately that still doesn’t answer why the word ‘Petros’ was chosen at all. ‘Stone’ was not anyone’s proper name until it was applied by Jesus to Peter.
Doesn't the fact that Jesus is making up a name here add innumerable depths of significance to the whole exchange? And a name like "Rock" which is only previously applied to God?
Therefore, since He’s basically making up a name on this occasion, why choose a name that means ‘a small stone’, if His intention is to show that he is actually the larger bedrock?
Since "lithos" biblically is always the word used in that context, and since I pointed out that the distinction was one that had faded by the first century and was not used, how is it that you persist in this argument? Even where the distinction was used, it was in Classical Greek poetry. Since Matthew is neither Classical Greek nor poetry, "petros" seems rather far removed from the meaning you wish to ascribe it.
As I’ve already stated, Petras, Petrou or even Petra could have been used and conveyed this sense.
Considering that a) Petra is a girl's name, and b) Petrou is possessive (Compare Matthew 8:14 where "Petrou" is used in the phrase "Peter's house"), Petras is the only alternative. I'd have to look up possible reasons in the Greek language, but, like "Petrou" it seems likely that it is somehow a particular suffix with a particular meaning, and thus a distinction without a difference. In any case, as a proper noun, I reiterate that the name Petros is distinct from petra only in regard to gender.
Since He was making up a name anyway, why not match it to His intention – unless that’s exactly what He was doing through the distinction He gave between those words?
Simply and only because of the rules of Greek grammar. They weren't speaking English, you know. The rules are different. The fact that you didn't recognise that "Petrou" means "Peter's" and not simply "Peter" indicates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of that fact. I'm sorry to say it so bluntly.
As you've noted, ‘Petra’ was never applied to Jesus as a proper name, but that misses the point.
Actually, it makes the point that the reason "petra" remained "petra" instead of
"masculinising" when applied to Jesus was simply that it was not used as His name. I think you missed that point, which in my mind nullified your point.
'Petra' as it is used in Matthew 16:18 was not intended as a name, but as a description:
Exactly.
and this description was applied to Jesus, to Him only, and to Him repeatedly, and never to Peter at all.
That really seems to me to do violence to the text! Just like you say Jesus should have named Peter something different to avoid "confusion" (read: belaboured reinterpretation to avoid obvious conclusion), if Jesus wanted to make it plain that He was referring to Himself, He should have said, "You are Peter, a piece of the Rock that I Am, on which I will build My Church," or something to that effect.
Thing is, in this context, Jesus is speaking not as the foundation, but as the builder. Moreover, Catholicism does not deny that Jesus is the Rock, or even that Peter's confession is the Rock. It merely asserts that while both of those ideas are true, it is also true that Peter himself is rightfully identified as the Rock. It is again a case of "both/and" rather than "either/or".
The obvious conclusion is that the word refers to Jesus, not Peter.
I fail to see how this conclusion is "obvious" if no one until the Reformation picked up on it! In light of history, it seems less "obvious" and more "special pleading" to avoid submitting to the Bishop of Rome's authority.
In fact, in the passage itself, the whole point is the revelation of who Jesus is, and Peter is the one making this point!
Exactly, and this is precisely how Petrine doctrine points us to Christ, since that was the point of this whole Open Forum. Peter's authority is given by, based on, and because of Jesus' Messiahship. He is the steward to the King!
As another interesting point, Peter was not the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. That honor fell to Nathanael (John 1:49). The reason it was such a big deal in Matthew 16 is because the Father had granted it as revelation, an unveiling of His Son.
Nathanael's confession wasn't a divine revelation? That's rather Pelagian of you, and contradicts John 6:44a: "No one can come to Me unless drawn by the Father who sent Me."
Anyone who recognises the truth about Jesus does so because of the Grace given him by the Father.
It was a whole break-through, spiritual catharsis of the revelation of Christ and who He is! Jesus is explaining the significance of this testimony, as would naturally follow such an event. So how could that catharsis possibly mean that we need to focus on Peter now?
It seems to me that bringing Nathanael into this works against you, if John 6:44 is indeed true. As such, it argues against Peter's testimony as being the "cause" or the "reason" for his appointment, but rather the catalyst or opportunity to bestow the title on him.
And it isn't so much that we focus on Peter, but that we listen to his authority as we, in unity with him, experience the fulness of the Christian faith and the fulness of the gift of Grace that Christ has to offer.
“Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?”
(Gal 3:3)
(No personal offense intended in that quote by the way. Honest).
None taken. I replied with James 2:20, "Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?" at Mark 1:17's blog in reply to his recent article (prompted, at least in part, by our discussions here) on faith vs. works. So I get the fact that the harsh language is part of the verse.
However, I'm not overly clear on the purpose of the quotation in this context. We do not base our salvation on Peter. We do not base our Grace received on Peter. That is Christ alone. What we base on Peter is our understanding of correct faith and correct morals, so that we may better love and serve Jesus!
You also said, "For the Aramaic argument to work against me (kepha vs shua) you have to successfully demonstrate that "petros" is fundamentally different from "petra" in the way you describe.
The difference is in the meaning of the word itself, and demonstrated in the passage itself:
Which I have consistently refuted.
I reiterate by quoting Vine’s:
1. petra ^4073^ denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see -Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48- (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, "because it had been well builded"); -Rev. 6:15,16- (cf. -Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6,13-, used illustratively; -1 Cor. 10:4- (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in -Rom. 9:33- and -1 Pet. 2:8-, metaphorically, of Christ; in -Matt. 16:18-, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the apostle, is clear.”
And I reply by quoting Strong's:
Petra:
Outline of Biblical Usage:
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
b) a rock, a large stone
c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Petros:
Outline of Biblical Usage:
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
Lithos:
Outline of Biblical Usage:
1) a stone
a) of small stones
b) of building stones
c) metaph. of Christ
Since it is appropriate to our discussion, I wanted to reflect on the readings of Mass this weekend.
A reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah:
Thus says the Lord:
Go and find that steward,
Shebna, the master of the palace:
I shall hound you from your office,
I shall snatch you from your post
and, when that day comes,
I shall summon My servant
Eliakim son of Hilkiah.
I shall dress him in your tunic,
I shall put your sash round his waist,
I shall invest him with your authority;
and he will be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
And to the house of Judah.
I shall place the key of David's palace on his shoulder;
when he opens, no one will close,
when he closes, no one will open.
I shall drive him like a nail into a firm place;
and he will become a throne of glory for his family.
V. The word of the Lord.
R. Thanks be to God!
A reading from Paul's letter to the Romans:
How rich and deep are the wisdom and the knowledge of God! We cannot reach to the root of His decisions or His ways. "Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been His adviser? Who has given anything to Him, so that His presents come only as a debt returned?" Everything there is comes from Him and is caused by Him and exists for Him. To Him be the glory for ever! Amen.
V. The word of the Lord.
R. Thanks be to God!
V. A reading from the Gospel according to St. Matthew.
R. Glory to You, Oh Lord!
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi He put this question to His disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But you," He said, "Who do you say that I am?" Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Simon, son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but My Father in Heaven. So now I say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build My community. And the gates of the underworld will never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then He gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that He was the Christ.
V. The Gospel of the Lord!
R. Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ!
Quite honestly, we've beaten Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 to death, but the framers of the Lectionary stuck Romans 11:33-36 in with the readings for this, the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time.
This passage ties everything together in my mind. What it says to me is that God gave Shebna authority over the kingdom, which he abused out of lack of faith and abundance of conceit, and God took it away, and gave it to His faithful servant, Eliakim. When Jesus echoes the themes and the symbols of this passage in today's Gospel, it is again God (Jesus) who gives this authority to Peter, and this gift to the Church. It is His response to Peter's revelation that Jesus is in fact the Christ, the King of Israel. The King then bestows on Peter the stewardship of the Kingdom through the granting of the Keys.
While this is true, and Peter has been given this role and this primacy, it is not, ultimately, to glorify Peter, but rather, in giving Peter this glory, that glory given reflects the greater glory of Christ Himself:
As St. Paul writes, "Everything there is comes from Him and is caused by Him and exists for Him. To Him be the glory for ever! Amen."
Peter's leadership, according to Paul, since it is a part of "everything", comes from Jesus. It is caused by Jesus. And most importantly, it exists for Jesus! Why? To give Him glory forever!
Notably, if we take the unknown author that Paul cites seriously, Jesus' gift is not a reward for Peter's Sunday-School answer, for no one can put God in his debt. Jesus did this to and for Peter because Jesus did, in order to give glory to Himself. It was for the same reason that God prompted Peter to speak out such in the first place:
The reason is Grace.
Through Christ's grace He gave a great gift to the Church: He gave infallible leadership with binding authority, so that we can know without fear of error that the truth we know about Christ is indeed true--that He will never let the Church that He is building fall into the disrepair or ruin of error.
Historically, this has been shown as saintly popes have stood up and confronted heresy, shooting it down and affirming the orthodox faith. Even the bad, evil, murderous and sinful popes were divinely kept from defining error as dogma, of promulgating error as truth, and of rewriting Scripture to suit their whims.
God has protected the Catholic Church as a bastion of orthodoxy and morality that has no equal in any other Christian groups.
In the Reformation, the Anglican Church allowed divorce. Now most Protestant groups treat it as "no big deal" and certainly not a grave sin--even though the Bible plainly states that "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16).
In 1930, at the Lambeth council, Anglicans voted that artificial contraceptives would be allowable in "extreme situations" even though historically, the Church (every church) had condemned them. Now, every Protestant church accepts them as a way of life, with some pastors helping couples discern which form of birth control is "right for them" in their marriage preparation. Only the Catholic Church stands against this.
More recently, homosexuality is being taught as not sinful in many Protestant quarters. Historically speaking, how long before the majority of Protestant denominations fold on this issue, too? The Catholic Church holds to its infallible dogma that homosexuality, however one might reinterpret the biblical texts, is in fact sinful.
Embryonic Stem Cell research; cloning; on and on. The "grey issues" to many Protestants are studied, examined, prayed about, and defined by the Church that Christ promised to be led by His Spirit into all truth.
In 2000 years, it has not wavered, and it is not about to! That is because it is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles, on the rock of Peter, and because ultimately, it has Jesus as its Cornerstone. It will not be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, but the Barque of Peter (to be unChristlike, and mix my metaphors ;) ) sails on through the stormy seas of this world, toward her heavenly home "across the Eastern Sea" to borrow a line from C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia.
Okay, that's the end of my sermon. I'm going to bed!
God bless!
I think my question #2 was misunderstood.
The Apostle John was alive (and presumably well) until the time of the 'third' pope - Anacletus.
Why was the succession to Linus not the Apostle John after Peter?
One could presume that since John personally knew Christ, and authored 5 books of the New Testament, that he was 'more qualified' for the position.
That Linus was the bishop of the church in Rome would be irrelevant, as irrelevant as it is today, when popes are chosen from 'everywhere'. John could have traveled to Rome to assume the position before being exiled to Patmos, or after.
Who made the decision to install Linus as the successor?
Hi Randy,
Based on what I've read, Sproul is pretty much alone; I've never before heard a protestant disagree with the exegesis I gave. But in any case it wouldn't matter. What Jesus said doesn't need validation by any man, but He speaks for Himself:
It amazes me how someone can say this and not see the arrogance in it. Protestants are so quick to throw away the opinions of everyone else who has ever read this passage. The claim it is about Jesus but it is about self. Everything in catholicsm points to Jesus. Interpeting His word with the light of His body while submitting to the authority of His vicar. Protestant exegesis is totally self centered.
"Whoever comes to Me . . . is like a man who . . . laid the foundation on the rock" (Luke 6:47-48)
The Greek word for 'rock', used here, is 'Petra', the same word used when He says 'on this rock I will build my Church'. No mix-ups, everything matches just fine. And I agree with what David said about the blessing.
This is begging the question. The papacy brings people to Jesus. This is how it works. The church is a family. You come to Jesus by eating at the family table, submitting to the family authority, taking the family name, doing the family chores, etc. How is that differant than the rock Jesus talked about in Matthew 16?
By the way, I wanted to mention that I do have a world of respect for Peter.
It's not about Peter. It's about his office. John 21 is there to remove doubt about Peter's legitimacy even though he was long dead when it was written. The office endures. Respecting Peter is safe and easy. Respecting Peter's office is anything but. When we draw near to Jesus we need to be prepared to be changed by the experience. That is why the papacy is hard to accept.
In regard to my comment: “Based on what I've read, Sproul is pretty much alone; I've never before heard a protestant disagree with the exegesis I gave. But in any case it wouldn't matter. What Jesus said doesn't need validation by any man, but He speaks for Himself.” It was answered:
“It amazes me how someone can say this and not see the arrogance in it. Protestants are so quick to throw away the opinions of everyone else who has ever read this passage. They claim it is about Jesus but it is about self. Everything in catholicsm points to Jesus. Interpeting His word with the light of His body while submitting to the authority of His vicar. Protestant exegesis is totally self centered.
First point: As stated in the comment that was first quoted, I was giving an initial opinion. But I did do some re-checking in the process of some further research (see my previous comment), and I verified that virtually all Protestants are in agreement on this exegesis, which I was simply repeating. Therefore, this was not a ‘quick’ thing to say at all. It does, however, make we wonder how quickly the remark was made that “The Petra/Petros argument is a real reach. Most protestant theologians will not even try and defend it. It is fails on so many levels.”
When I took the time to check out this counter-claim, I found the opposite to be true. Virtually no Protestants would hesitate to defend this position, with the possible exception of Mr. Sproul. This, therefore, was the hasty remark (rather than mine).
Second point: Another way to look at this difference in interpretation is that every reformed group that has ever re-examined this Scripture has reached the conclusion that the older, catholic interpretation was incorrect, and that the implications were so significant it called for a change – even at the risk of facing the inquisition (at the time). Other groups, such as the Orthodox and the ana-baptists, which were just as old if not older than catholicism, never went along with that interpretation in the first place.
One would normally view the sole exception as the ‘arrogant’, party, rather than the otherwise unanimous majority; especially since the catholic interpretation of the verse, by the ‘authority of the vicar’ as it was stated, ends up pointing back to himself. Objectively speaking, this gives him a ‘vested interest’ in the interpretation. Therefore, the Protestant exegesis is not the self-centered one.
The papacy brings people to Jesus.
On the contrary, Jesus told us three times: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:37,44,65). Just as Peter was able to say that Jesus was the Christ because the Father had revealed this to him, the Father must reveal this to each of us. Not the papacy. Not in that day nor in this. “Having begun in the spirit, are you now being made perfect through the flesh?”
It also strikes me as odd that when we claim Jesus speaks for Himself, and we prove it from the Bible, our deference to Him should be called ‘arrogance’; and instead we are directed to the interpretations of those who would use this passage to point back to themselves in a favorable light. At the risk of further arrogance, I defer to Jesus again:
"He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”
(John 7:18)
Like Gregory, I very much dislike it when tempers and personalities come into conflict, which is not to say I’m immune to it myself, but that it’s unfortunate whenever it occurs. Perhaps we can settle this issue with one, broader question:
As Catholics, do you claim that salvation can only be found in the Roman Catholic church, as the fourth Lateran counsel taught? Or would you agree with the third Lateran counsel, that salvation may be found outside the church, though not outside of Christ?
Gregory, You stated,
"In the Reformation, the Anglican Church allowed divorce. Now most Protestant groups treat it as "no big deal" and certainly not a grave sin--even though the Bible plainly states that "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16).
In 1930, at the Lambeth council, Anglicans voted that artificial contraceptives would be allowable in "extreme situations" even though historically, the Church (every church) had condemned them. Now, every Protestant church accepts them as a way of life, with some pastors helping couples discern which form of birth control is "right for them" in their marriage preparation. Only the Catholic Church stands against this.
More recently, homosexuality is being taught as not sinful in many Protestant quarters. Historically speaking, how long before the majority of Protestant denominations fold on this issue, too? The Catholic Church holds to its infallible dogma that homosexuality, however one might reinterpret the biblical texts, is in fact sinful.
Embryonic Stem Cell research; cloning; on and on. The "grey issues" to many Protestants are studied, examined, prayed about, and defined by the Church that Christ promised to be led by His Spirit into all truth."
I would appreciate it if you would be more specific in your deffinition of "Most Protestant groups treat it as 'no big deal'". Be very careful in lumping "all" protestant groups together. I would argue the other way, and say that it is still the minority, however that minority is in the spotlight!
It is kind of like the media in a sense. It calls itself the mainstream and most of the rest of the world is douped by it, however the majority of the U.S. public does not agree with the media! I.E. The War in Iraq, Stem Cell Research, Anything to do with President Bush. Again, the "Mainstream Media" says one thing, but the Majority of the U.S. public does not agree. The Media is Liberal and the U.S. majority is Conservative. However most of the rest of the world doesn't see it!
Again, I caution you in taking the Minority (that gets most of the spotlight) and saying that they are the Majority, which they are not.
In Christ,
David
Unchained Slave said...
I think my question #2 was misunderstood.
No, I'm pretty sure I got it.
The Apostle John was alive (and presumably well) until the time of the 'third' pope - Anacletus.
Yes, but John was also presiding in another jurisdiction at the time. Namely Asia Minor, living out of Ephesus. He co-shared the bishopric with Timothy, until his exile to Patmos, at which point Timothy became the sole bishop of Ephesus. Since Linus was appointed Peter's successor by both he and Paul (according to Irenaeus) there was no need for John to succeed Peter.
Thus, to answer that question, Linus was appointed successor to Peter by Peter himself, and Paul.
Why was the succession to Linus not the Apostle John after Peter?
Other than the fact that John was either presiding over Ephesus or exiled on Patmos, you mean?
One could presume that since John personally knew Christ, and authored 5 books of the New Testament, that he was 'more qualified' for the position.
One could, but it doesn't negate the early historical testimony that he was otherwise engaged, and that Peter and Paul chose Linus. And assuming that similar "decision-making techniques" were used as those mentioned in Acts 15:28, I'd suggest that Peter and Paul, as important as they were, weren't the heavyweights behind the decision (Hint: His initials are "H.S.").
That Linus was the bishop of the church in Rome would be irrelevant, as irrelevant as it is today, when popes are chosen from 'everywhere'.
That Linus was Bishop of Rome is not just "irrelevant", it is precisely the point. "Bishop of Rome" = "Pope", and always has.
John could have traveled to Rome to assume the position before being exiled to Patmos, or after.
And yet, he didn't. Why was that? Possibly because Peter didn't pick him...?
Who made the decision to install Linus as the successor?
Again, according to St. Irenaeus (who himself was a successor of John's apostolate, having been taught by Polycarp, who himself was taught by John), Peter and Paul made that call.
Also, notably, John, many years after the fact, records another prominent exchange between Jesus and Peter in which Jesus affirms Peter's unique role in the Church (John 21:15-19). For all Loren's talk about self-serving interpretations, had John actually been next in line as successor to Peter, he would probably have indicated it here. Instead, he affirms Peter's position in that regard, and minimises himself, as he consistently does throughout his Gospel.
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory, You stated,
"In the Reformation, the Anglican Church allowed divorce. Now most Protestant groups treat it as "no big deal" and certainly not a grave sin--even though the Bible plainly states that "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16).
In 1930, at the Lambeth council, Anglicans voted that artificial contraceptives would be allowable in "extreme situations" even though historically, the Church (every church) had condemned them. Now, every Protestant church accepts them as a way of life, with some pastors helping couples discern which form of birth control is "right for them" in their marriage preparation. Only the Catholic Church stands against this.
More recently, homosexuality is being taught as not sinful in many Protestant quarters. Historically speaking, how long before the majority of Protestant denominations fold on this issue, too? The Catholic Church holds to its infallible dogma that homosexuality, however one might reinterpret the biblical texts, is in fact sinful.
Embryonic Stem Cell research; cloning; on and on. The "grey issues" to many Protestants are studied, examined, prayed about, and defined by the Church that Christ promised to be led by His Spirit into all truth."
I would appreciate it if you would be more specific in your deffinition of "Most Protestant groups treat it as 'no big deal'". Be very careful in lumping "all" protestant groups together.
I'm pretty sure "most" and "all" are different. Most, after all, could just refer to a majority 51%. However, even among the conservative branch of Protestantism, divorce is more acceptable, and not the grave sin, that it is in Catholicism. Remarriage is acceptable, and not considered adultery, in any Protestant church I have ever encountered--and my own Protestant Pentecostal church was as morally conservative as they come!
When it comes to birth control, my point stands. I don't know of any denomination of Protestantism that considers artificial contraceptives to be a grave sin. If you know of any, please, let me know!
Furthermore, with "sound" biblical exegesis and exposition of the meanings of Greek words, it is increasingly difficult to formulate a convincing Sola Scriptura argument against homosexuality--no matter how obviously wrong and sinful such behaviour is! The fact that the debate exists at all in any quarter of Christianity is a sad statement!
I am not saying that all Protestants are like this (except perhaps in the birth control area). There is a strong conservative section of Evangelicalism--but since Evangelicalism is itself a minority within Protestantism (mainline, oftentimes liberal, churches make up the majority of the Protestant population, unfortunately--at least in this generation), the trouble itself looms ever-present. And besides, on what authority do you in the conservative camp claim that liberals have the wrong interpretation of Scripture, anyway? (Please understand, I don't mean to imply, by that rhetorical question, that I agree with liberal interpretations--simply that Protestantism as a system, following Sola Scriptura, has no logical defence of that interpretive position.)
I would argue the other way, and say that it is still the minority, however that minority is in the spotlight!
Population and membership statistics (at least those that I studied in Church Planting courses in an Evangelical Protestant Bible College) contradict your argument (though, thankfully, the trend shows that liberal denominations are slowly losing members while evangelicalism seems to be growing (especially the charismatic side). But the difference is still pretty large.
[Omitted media analogy as not pertinent to the argument.]
Again, I caution you in taking the Minority (that gets most of the spotlight) and saying that they are the Majority, which they are not.
Sadly, that's not what I have done. And if you want to go by majority opinion, the Roman Catholic Church is by far the majority of Christianity by quite a long shot, with 1.1 billion members worldwide. Since Christianity in total is only about 2 billion strong, and that remaining .9 billion is fragmented into thousands of competing denominations, well, I guess for Protestants it's a good thing Christianity isn't a democracy.
loren said...
In regard to my comment: “Based on what I've read, Sproul is pretty much alone; I've never before heard a protestant disagree with the exegesis I gave. But in any case it wouldn't matter. What Jesus said doesn't need validation by any man, but He speaks for Himself.” It was answered:
“It amazes me how someone can say this and not see the arrogance in it. Protestants are so quick to throw away the opinions of everyone else who has ever read this passage. They claim it is about Jesus but it is about self. Everything in catholicsm points to Jesus. Interpeting His word with the light of His body while submitting to the authority of His vicar. Protestant exegesis is totally self centered.
First point: As stated in the comment that was first quoted, I was giving an initial opinion. But I did do some re-checking in the process of some further research (see my previous comment), and I verified that virtually all Protestants are in agreement on this exegesis, which I was simply repeating. Therefore, this was not a ‘quick’ thing to say at all. It does, however, make we wonder how quickly the remark was made that “The Petra/Petros argument is a real reach. Most protestant theologians will not even try and defend it. It is fails on so many levels.”
Perhaps Randy was a little quick in his statement (I don't know--I haven't bothered to really research Protestant opinion on this--and besides, doctrine and scriptural interpretation isn't decided by majority vote). However, Randy, if you do have some references, I would love to see them (not to come down hard on you or anything--I'm just curious myself). Sproul did indicate, however, that the Protestant hermeneutic denying Peter as the rock was only dreamed up because of Protestant opposition to the Papacy.
When I took the time to check out this counter-claim, I found the opposite to be true. Virtually no Protestants would hesitate to defend this position, with the possible exception of Mr. Sproul.
Well of course. If they accepted the historical, uncontroverted explanation of the text, and followed it to its conclusion, they wouldn't be Protestants, would they?
This, therefore, was the hasty remark (rather than mine).
Either way...
Second point: Another way to look at this difference in interpretation is that every reformed group that has ever re-examined this Scripture has reached the conclusion that the older, catholic interpretation was incorrect, and that the implications were so significant it called for a change – even at the risk of facing the inquisition (at the time).
Yeah. About the only thing that all Protestants agree on is their refusal to accept Catholic authority. So, you're unified that the Catholic Church is de facto wrong, but on who is actually right, well, it's about a 1:1000 or greater chance, right? That's reassuring.
Other groups, such as the Orthodox and the ana-baptists, which were just as old if not older than catholicism, never went along with that interpretation in the first place.
Actually, the Eastern Orthodox do in fact believe in the primacy of Peter based on this passage. They just interpret the ramifications of that differently. But since, despite it's claim to the title "orthodox" (correct worship), the EO Church has officially embraced heretical positions on numerous occasions in its early history (while the Western church stood fastly against them) and each time eventually rejected those formerly officially held heresies later on, their track record isn't the greatest. The fact that they still theologically deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (which is accepted by all trinitarian Protestants--who "borrowed" their doctrine of the Trinity wholesale from Catholicism) also shows that they aren't always right on the "orthodox" mark--at least as far as the Western Church is concerned. And if they happen to be right, and Catholicism is wrong, then Protestantism is also wrong on those same points!
On the other hand, claiming that the Ana-baptists (which, historically speaking, were a violent and extremely radical body of church and civil reformers which first made their appearance in 1521 at Zwickau, in the present kingdom of Saxony, and still exist in milder forms) "predate Catholicism" is seemingly revisionist history on par with Dan Brown and his "DaVinci Code" or other consipracy theorists. Sorry to put it so harshly, but the only link that they claim to have to the pre-Reformation era is by citing a long list of officially condemned heresies, the teachings of which would abhor modern-day anabaptists!
But hey, if you can actually demonstrate an historical continuity that doesn't involve Waldenses on back to Marcion, I'd give it a read!
One would normally view the sole exception as the ‘arrogant’, party, rather than the otherwise unanimous majority; especially since the catholic interpretation of the verse, by the ‘authority of the vicar’ as it was stated, ends up pointing back to himself.
Except that, by claiming that heretical factions (which were declared such not because they denied the papacy, but for other, more elemental reasons) contribute to a "majority" along with the Eastern Orthodox church (which agrees that Peter was the Rock in Matthew 16:18--just denying that his primacy leads to an infallible papacy) is a gross mishandling of history.
Objectively speaking, this gives him a ‘vested interest’ in the interpretation. Therefore, the Protestant exegesis is not the self-centered one.
That has yet to be proven, since even those men who weren't popes or potential popes interpreted the passage such, and submitted to the papacy. Moreover, in the Early Church where heresies ran rampant in the East (Arianism controlled most Eastern patriarchates except for that of Athanasius, from whence the famous dictum, "Athanasius contra mundi" originates), the West stood solid and unmoved, anchored to that very Rock, which declared heretical teachings to be that, and orthodox teachings to be truth. So yeah, as far as knowing the truth about Christ is concerned (re: every theologically correct trinitarian formulation you can think of!), I'd say the West had a "vested interest" in declaring who exactly it was that held the Keys to Christ's Kingdom!
The papacy brings people to Jesus.
On the contrary, Jesus told us three times: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:37,44,65). Just as Peter was able to say that Jesus was the Christ because the Father had revealed this to him, the Father must reveal this to each of us.
So, the Father brings us to Christ. [True]
Christ builds His Kingdom in the Church. [True]
Christ appoints Peter as the head of said Church (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-17). [True]
The Church teaches us about Christ so that we may more ably live for Him. [True]
Therefore, the Church bringing people to Christ contradicts the Father bringing people to Christ. [Huh? Whazzat?]
Correction: The Father draws people to Christ through the ministry of the Church--Romans 10:14,15.
Why do you insist on making contradictions where none exist?
Not the papacy. Not in that day nor in this. “Having begun in the spirit, are you now being made perfect through the flesh?”
The papacy is not "the flesh", but the appointed steward of Christ for His Church, to safeguard and proclaim correct teaching on faith and morals, because of the gift of infallibility bestowed by that selfsame saving Spirit.
It also strikes me as odd that when we claim Jesus speaks for Himself, and we prove it from the Bible, our deference to Him should be called ‘arrogance’;
Problem is, saying "Jesus speaks for Himself, and we prove it from the Bible," in a situation like this means "Jesus speaks for Himself, and we prove it from our interpretation of the Bible." If Jesus does in fact speak so clearly for Himself, how is it that no one heard Him on this regard for 1500 years (despite the presence of saintly and godly men and women who devoutly followed Him prior to that)?
and instead we are directed to the interpretations of those who would use this passage to point back to themselves in a favorable light.
At the risk of further arrogance, I defer to Jesus again:
"He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”
(John 7:18)
Or, maybe Jesus actually meant what Catholics think He meant, and denying this is actually calling Christ a liar, or unclear, or somehow unable to keep His promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail over His Church--since, if for 1500 years people were "enslaved to the flesh" of the papacy instead of to the saving Spirit, that's an awful lot of damned souls in an apostate church!
Thank God Luther arrived on the scene just in time...er...1500 years later...so Jesus' promise wouldn't be in vain!...Oh, wait.
Oh! But hey, there were those "anabaptist" heresies...er, pre-cursors, to keep the faith alive! Yeah, well, I'd like to know what groups you would consider falling into such a classification.
Like Gregory, I very much dislike it when tempers and personalities come into conflict, which is not to say I’m immune to it myself, but that it’s unfortunate whenever it occurs. Perhaps we can settle this issue with one, broader question:
As Catholics, do you claim that salvation can only be found in the Roman Catholic church, as the fourth Lateran counsel taught? Or would you agree with the third Lateran counsel, that salvation may be found outside the church, though not outside of Christ?
I defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.< [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.]
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.< [LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.]
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." [AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.]
So again we have an apparent contradiction that is actually harmonised by a correct understanding. Christ saves, and He does so normatively through His Church, His Body. However, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel proclaimed by the Church might be saved if they respond to the grace that has been given to them--grace that comes through Christ's death on the Cross.
And your (Catholic) defenition of Chruch would be?
Yeah. About the only thing that all Protestants agree on is their refusal to accept Catholic authority. So, you're unified that the Catholic Church is de facto wrong, but on who is actually right, well, it's about a 1:1000 or greater chance, right? That's reassuring.
The ‘who is actually right’ part of that comment is based on an assumption that truth exists in the form of an institution, but in reality truth exists in the form of a Person, Jesus Christ Himself (John 14:6). And I find that totally reassuring (Heb 10:21-23). Truth itself, and authority itself, are found in truly representing Him – which is why Christian leaders rule over us by example, and not simply by their office (1 Peter 5:1-3).
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”
(John 15:26-27)
To ‘bear witness’ means to point beyond yourself to another. The Holy Spirit Himself does this when He testifies of Jesus, and He does this on the basis of knowing Him so well (1 Cor 2:10). But in this passage we see that the apostles, too, had come to know Jesus! They had continued with Him in His trials, which helped to remake their character in His image (Luke 22:28). Therefore they, too, would bear witness of Him with familiarity – in the same sense that the Holy Spirit does.
As the apostles spoke of Jesus in this way, the people saw Jesus for themselves; and with further, direct ministry from the Holy Spirit Himself in their own lives, it helped remake their character in a similar way. Soon, others would begin to see Jesus in their lives as well:
“clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.”
(2 Cor 3:3)
Jesus is represented by example, and our testimony is of Him. The only authority involved is that Jesus called them to preach, so by virtue of authority they perform this task (as in Mark 13:34), and by virtue of the same authority they deserve to be paid. But there is no delegation of authority in the sense of one Christian having authority over another, or dominion over their faith:
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you . . .”
(Matt 20:25-26)
Still, Gregory has made a good point in saying that Protestants do not agree on everything. Long ago this prompted me to do a study on just how much error a group could have, and still be considered Christian. I intend to do a longer posting on this one day soon at POLD, but here’s the short verison:
There are six areas of doctrine that we must hold purely. These include our doctrinal understanding of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (and thus, between them, the doctrine of the Trinity), faith, grace, and the gospel. Actually, we don’t even have to know that much about them, as long as whatever we do accept is pure.
Why these six areas? Because they are the doctrinal counterparts to the living relationship itself. On the basis of the gospel, we relate to God by faith and He responds with grace. Understanding the corresponding doctrine guides us into the relationship itself more purely; but error in those doctrines would have the corresponding effect of guiding us away from the relationship.
When this occurs, Christians enter a fallen spiritual state called ‘bondage’ in which their relationship with God is broken (ex: Gal 5:1-5), and that was the basis of the study. Anyway, here’s the short of it:
Various points of doctrinal disagreement may still be important, but they’re not enough to exclude a person. Most Protestant churches meet the criteria easily, but even so, it really comes down to the individuals themselves. The same church may have people who are saved, and some who are not, because their personal walk with the Lord is what really counts.
The same is true of the Catholic church. Some are really saved, and some are not, depending on their individual walk with God. And in this sense, there is one area of Catholic doctrine that I view as problematic. It involves mediators (including an institutional mediator). A mediator conflicts with the model I gave because it ‘intercepts’ our direct faith in God, rather than funneling it through to Him, or vice versa. This is because God only accepts one Mediator, and that is Jesus Himself (1 Tim 2:5); other mediators are actually sidetracks to another end, and our faith in God is derailed through them.
This is why it is very important to understand the role of leaders, who, like the Holy Spirit, should come ‘along side us’ (parakletos) but not come ‘in between’ us and the Lord. We must all have our own relationship with Jesus, and not depend on others to have the relationship for us. Now, if we are Catholic because we fully agree with their teachings – that’s one thing. Even if we don’t fully understand but we are taking it by faith - that has merit as well. It keeps the direct link of consciousness to God intact. It still means the clergy has effectively ‘come along side’ in their ministry, and that’s okay. It’s probably okay to go along with them generally, too, and have some quiet, personal reservations on particular points. The problem arises when we must choose between Christ and church, and we close our eyes to the Lord and choose man instead. That is where my concern lies, and the whole point of my exhortation. I hope, pray, and believe that whatever other disagreements we may have, this is something we can agree upon. And if we do, we are not nearly as far apart as we may think.
Gregory, et.al.,
I realize you are Catholic. I realize it is your desire to defend the Catholic Church and it's position.
That is what this Q&A is about...
However; I have to call you on one issue.
You (Gregory) have assailed divisions in protestant churches repeatedly (with fairly good arguments). However, you have done so as if there has been NO dissention within the Catholic Church for 2000 years.
You (Gregory) pointed out dissention in the Catholic Church in recent times:
As for movements, there are "movements" to ordain women priests, "movements" that say the Church has had no (valid) Pope since Pius XII, "movements" towards the liberalisation of Christianity. The fact that there is such a "movement" does not mean that there is a valid point behind it. Notice that The Church has not made the declaration to name Mary "mediatrix of all graces."
As well as Historically.
The 'Catholic Church' may be consistent in its 'final' say on a matter...but that certainly does not mean there are not disagreements within the bishopric.
Example 2: Canons 846-848 -The Catholic Church coming to terms with the 'dogmatic' position that Salvation is not possible for non-Catholics...a position going back to (at least) Ignatius of Antioch: (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110])
Yes, I know, you are going to point to the beauty of the Catholic Church - that once it decides a matter - the matter is doctrine, and closed...
All I'm saying is that the Catholic Church has NOT shown the 'perfect unity' that appears to be implied here.
Gregory,
I'll come to your defense here. Hmm... Lutherans and Catholics working in unity... Cool!
Unchained Slave:
The following are your statements:
1. "You (Gregory) have assailed divisions in protestant churches repeatedly (with fairly good arguments). However, you have done so as if there has been NO dissention within the Catholic Church for 2000 years."
2. "You (Gregory) pointed out dissention in the Catholic Church in recent times."
I'm left wondering, if Gregory has pointed out recent dissentions within the Catholic Church (#2), why would you suggest he has not (#1)?
As for dissentions in general, they have existed in the Church for much longer than institutionalised Catholicism (refer to the Gnostics, or Donatist Schism, if you will), and have run rampant through all of church history. One only need pick up a Church History book and have a cursory flip through the pages to pin this truth down.
My point is this: the Church is divinely instituted, yet, curated by human beings. The logical outcome of sinful curators is sinful events. This should be no surprise to anyone. Hence the reason why the church has not been of one accord, and why there are divisions. In truth, it is horribly sad.
As for Protestants, I wonder if it is reasonable to say their voice has been heard; the Catholic Church repented of its dealings with Luther, et al.; so could it be that Protestants should be coming back to the Church that birthed them? Perhaps a re-examination of the current state of Christianity and its responsibility to the fourth commandment is in order?
I think the Catholic Church is excellent. My heart yearns for unity. I'm an orthodox Lutheran. What's in my way? I don't know anymore.
Christopher J. Freeman
Actually Isaiah 22 is a prophecy. Notice that in verse 21 it says "I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be the father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."
At the time Isaiah was written, Judah and Israel had already split into two kingdoms, which as I'm sure you know were not "reunited" so to speak until Christ. So in the literal sense of this passage, Eliakim could not possibly be the steward for two kings, but rather this passage prophecies a time when the steward will be over both. This can only refer to Christ's kingship.
With Respect, Dr. Freeman,
My point was that sometimes Gregory presents his argument/defense as 'the doctrine of the Catholic Church' as if that doctrine was written 'in stone' 2000 years ago by the 'Fathers' and has remained constant an unchanged since then.
Your comment: the Church is divinely instituted, yet, curated by human beings. The logical outcome of sinful curators is sinful events.
Defies the Catholic Church's doctrine of Papal Infallibility
As to 'apologizing to Luther', As late as 1864, Pope Pius IX, in Quantum Cura section 3 declared that non-Catholics living in Catholic countries should not be allowed to practice their religion.
Some apology, considering Pius IX was beatified September 3, 2000.
Dr. Freeman,
Q: Would that be the Catholic 4th Commandment or the Protestant 4th Commandment?
Unchained Slave,
First, I'd like to continue to be called "Dr.", since it is my goal to get to that stage. Alas! I am simply an M.Div. student at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, in my 2nd year.
Second, Papal infallibility does not have to do with whether the Catholic church can make mistakes, or suffer dissentions, or not. Papal infallibility deals directly with the understanding that whatever the Pope decrees, that decree itself is infallible; not the Pope, and not the Church.
Third, despite Pope Pius IX's statements, the great Pope Jean-Paul II apologized in the 1990's for the historical atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. That apology included the improper treatment of Dr. Martin Luther and his subsequent followers.
That apology has been ratified over and over again with Catholics and Lutherans being in continual dialogue with each other. They have even issued joint statements together on such weighty, and pivitol issues as Justification. More, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is a very erudite scholar specializing in Protestant history. Benedict XVI is also quite good friends with Woflhart Pannenburg, the outstanding Lutheran theologian -- and they discuss issues of reconciliation between the Catholics and the Reformation church.
Fourth, the 4th commandment is the biblical 4th commandment to "honour your father and mother." It is traditionally interpreted by Catholics, and the Reformation church (Lutherans) as directly applying to one's parents, and by extention, those who are in authority over you; i.e., Priests, teachers, etc. Why? Because they are surrogate authorities given their position over us in our lives by God, who appoints all authority.
Does this help to clear things up at all?
Take care.
Christopher J. Freeman
David, I've answered that question before on your own blog:
"Wow, I wish my answer could be as concise as your question!
The Nicene Creed lays out the 4 components of the Church, that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. "These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes His Church one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and it is He who calls her to realise each of these qualities" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 811).
"866 The Church is one: she acknowledges one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms one holy Body, is given life by the one Spirit, for the sake of one hope (cf. Eph 4:3-5), at whose fulfilment all divisions will be overcome.
"867 The Church is holy: the Most Holy God is her author; Christ, her bridegroom, gave Himself up to make her holy; the Spirit of holiness gives her life. Since she still includes sinners, she is "the sinless one made up of sinners." Her holiness shines in the saints; in Mary she is already all-holy.
"868 The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature' (Ad Gentes 2).
"869 The Church is apostolic. She is built upon a lasting foundation: 'the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Matt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, again).
It would be specifically in paragraph 868, on the catholicity of the Church, that would answer your question most directly, about how the definition relates to the quote from St. Cyprian (why did you put quotation marks around his name, may I ask?).
I'm sure the above response really clears nothing up, but the answer to your question is a vast and complicated one, which books have been written about, and can hardly be done justice in a comment on a blog.
Biblically speaking, the Church is called many things, "The family of God", "The Bride of Christ", "The New Jerusalem", "The Kingdom of Heaven", and many others. The first mention of Church in the Bible is by Jesus, after Peter's confession of faith in Matthew 16. Jesus tells Simon that He is Peter (or "Rock") and upon this Rock He will build His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. He makes Peter the Steward of the Kingdom, by giving him the Keys of the Kingdom (an allusion to Isaiah 22). Later, in John, after Peter's denial, and Jesus' resurrection, Jesus three times has Peter affirm his love for Jesus, and each time Jesus commands him to feed or tend His sheep (John 21).
Peter's authority of "binding and loosing" as granted by the bestowal of the Keys, is granted to the other apostles as well (Matthew 18, John 20) but the Keys remain exclusively Peter's, as head of the Apostles.
St. Paul writes of this when he calls the Apostles the foundation of the faith: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:19-22).
This foundation is what the Church means when she calls herself "Apostolic", and it is the Apostolic Tradition that she upholds that goes back right to them, unbroken, passed down by their successors, the Bishops, united to the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. This unbroken tradition is what sets the Catholic Church apart from Protestant denominations, which each can only go back to AD 1517 at most (The year Luther posted his 95 Theses).
Despite abuses, both past and present, this Church has lasted and thrived, essentially unchanged, since the time of the Apostles. Her sins are a part of the mystery described above, that she is the sinless Body made up of sinners.
I'm not sure what more I should say, but I'm plenty sure that'll give some food for further discussion!
God bless"
If anyone is interested in the rest of that discussion, it can be found here. There are some good points about the need for an institutionalised Church there. It will save me repeating myself here. If you want to reply to that discussion, though, at David's request, please do it here.
Peter, you are right about Isaiah 22 being prophetic. I was just trying to make the point that it wasn't prophesying what Loren said that it was. But yeah, Isaiah 22: prophetic.
loren said...
Yeah. About the only thing that all Protestants agree on is their refusal to accept Catholic authority. So, you're unified that the Catholic Church is de facto wrong, but on who is actually right, well, it's about a 1:1000 or greater chance, right? That's reassuring.
The ‘who is actually right’ part of that comment is based on an assumption that truth exists in the form of an institution, but in reality truth exists in the form of a Person, Jesus Christ Himself (John 14:6). And I find that totally reassuring (Heb 10:21-23).
The problem remains, Loren, in the divisions over how we believe, understand, and live that relationship with the Person of Truth. If it really were as cut and dried as all that, then there would be no divisions whatsoever! Yet, for a myriad of reasons, there are.
Truth itself, and authority itself, are found in truly representing Him – which is why Christian leaders rule over us by example, and not simply by their office (1 Peter 5:1-3).
Of course, but the office is more stable and more permanent than the example--since we are all sinful and all fail. Leadership is and always should be based on a servanthood model (this is precisely why, on the Feast of Holy Thursday, the priest reenacts the washing of the feet, by washing members of the congregation's feet--to demonstrate that that is at the core of their ministry). But when the person fails, the office and the institution stand. The truth of Christianity, in this way, is not dependent on how well its followers follow it. If it were, trust me, I never would have become a Catholic--let alone stayed a Pentecostal!
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”
(John 15:26-27)
To ‘bear witness’ means to point beyond yourself to another. The Holy Spirit Himself does this when He testifies of Jesus, and He does this on the basis of knowing Him so well (1 Cor 2:10). But in this passage we see that the apostles, too, had come to know Jesus! They had continued with Him in His trials, which helped to remake their character in His image (Luke 22:28). Therefore they, too, would bear witness of Him with familiarity – in the same sense that the Holy Spirit does.
No one is denying this.
As the apostles spoke of Jesus in this way, the people saw Jesus for themselves; and with further, direct ministry from the Holy Spirit Himself in their own lives, it helped remake their character in a similar way. Soon, others would begin to see Jesus in their lives as well:
“clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.”
(2 Cor 3:3)
Of course.
Jesus is represented by example, and our testimony is of Him. The only authority involved is that Jesus called them to preach, so by virtue of authority they perform this task (as in Mark 13:34), and by virtue of the same authority they deserve to be paid.
I very much fail to see how that conclusion is arrived at in this argument. How is it the only authority? It completely negates and overlooks "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18; 18:18, cf. John 20:23).
But there is no delegation of authority in the sense of one Christian having authority over another, or dominion over their faith:
Only the authority of spiritual fatherhood, which Paul refers to repeatedly. More, Paul repeatedly appeals to his apostleship as his basis of authority, especially when dealing with grave errors and sins in the Church, as with the Corinthians. Yes, his apostleship is given by and dependent upon Christ, but that is precisely the point!
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you . . .”
(Matt 20:25-26)
No, the authority Christ gives is not a slave-driving, task-master-ing one, of "lording". It is the authority of a shepherd over the sheep (John 21:15-17).
Still, Gregory has made a good point in saying that Protestants do not agree on everything. Long ago this prompted me to do a study on just how much error a group could have, and still be considered Christian. I intend to do a longer posting on this one day soon at POLD, but here’s the short verison:
I'm looking forward to reading and commenting on the longer, detailed version.
There are six areas of doctrine that we must hold purely. These include our doctrinal understanding of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (and thus, between them, the doctrine of the Trinity), faith, grace, and the gospel. Actually, we don’t even have to know that much about them, as long as whatever we do accept is pure.
I count seven...or four, depending. 1. The Trinity; 2 (or 1a) The Father; 3 (or 1b) The Son; 4 (or 1c) The Holy Spirit; 5 (or 2) Faith; 6 (or 3) Grace; and 7 (or 4) The Gospel.
I would also contend that, logically, Grace would preceed faith in the list, "faith" itself is an interesting title for something that has to be believed, depending on how it is defined, and, finally, hopefully The Gospel (which, in a sense, could by a synonymous category with "the faith") includes issues of the basic problem with humanity, and how Christ solves that problem--which would really make it a subset of "The Son".
Why these six areas? Because they are the doctrinal counterparts to the living relationship itself. On the basis of the gospel, we relate to God by faith and He responds with grace. Understanding the corresponding doctrine guides us into the relationship itself more purely; but error in those doctrines would have the corresponding effect of guiding us away from the relationship.
The problem that I see is that there is great debate even over your 6 basics (not to mention, even over what those basics should be, no doubt).
On the Trinity, I'm sure we're all agreed that to deny One God in Three distinct yet equal Persons makes one not Christian.
On the Father, I'm sure Christianity all across the board is in agreement. Heck, so are the Jews.
On the Son, we already can begin to see a breakdown in unity--especially since under the heading of "Jesus", a lot falls. Sacramentalism would fall under The Son. Did Jesus mean it when He said that unless you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, you have no life in you? Did He mean it when He said "This [the Eucharistic bread] is My body"? If it is His Body, the Eucharist literally and explicitly and directly falls under "The Son".
Under "the Holy Spirit" there is more disunity. Did the charismatic gifts cease in the Early Church, or are they still available today? Is the Spirit an actual person, a "Him", or an impersonal "It"? Is He and the Scriptures enough to come to a full, complete understanding of the Faith, or does He rather operate within the Church as a community?
Grace: Is it simply God's unmerited favour, forgiving our sin and covering us with Christ's righteousness, or rather, is it the antithesis and the antidote to Sin, irradicating it in the life of the graced and filling them with the presence and the life of God? Is it given all in a one-time shot, or progressively? Is it available to all, or only to "the elect"?
Faith: is faith alone enough to save? What exactly is "saving faith"? Are we supposed to have faith in faith, or in Christ? (Which is another way of asking, is "faith" really something we need to agree on in that sense?) Are you refering to the Deposit of Faith, that Jude mentions? If so, isn't "Faith" then, the encapsulation of the rest of these points?
The Gospel: The fall of man: Is man "totally depraved" in the sense that sinfulness affects all humanity, or in the sense that man is absolutely incapable of doing any good thing apart from Christ--and that any good thing that he does do outside of Christ is itself considered automatically sinful? Christ's salvation: Did He die for everyone or just for the elect. Does God predestine some to Hell? Can we resist or refuse His grace? Can we reject or fail to persevere in the faith and so forfeit our Salvation, or are we eternally secure--and if we fail to persevere, it actually shows we were never saved at all? When exactly are we saved? Is baptism necessary for salvation?
So you see, Loren, your six fundamentals aren't as clear and agreed upon as all that. You could try to say that where you disagree with the opposing viewpoint, that viewpoint is wrong, but in so doing, you cut out of the Christian faith vast numbers and groups, and I'm not just talking about Catholicism, or even Eastern Orthodoxy. How you respond to some questions cuts out either Lutheranism or Zwinglian sects. Some answers will cut out Calvinists, while others will eliminate Arminians. And that's just a scratching of the "6 essentials".
This is precisely the problem of an ecumenism that focuses on "Lowest Common Denominator" unity. It's spiritual limbo: How low can you go?
When this occurs, Christians enter a fallen spiritual state called ‘bondage’ in which their relationship with God is broken (ex: Gal 5:1-5), and that was the basis of the study.
Where is "circumcision" or "works of the Jewish Law" in your above list?
Anyway, here’s the short of it:
Various points of doctrinal disagreement may still be important, but they’re not enough to exclude a person.
But who decides?
Most Protestant churches meet the criteria easily,
On a disagreement so fundamental and important as "Did Christ die for everyone, or just a few?" it can hardly be argued that most Protestant churches meet the criteria of agreeing even on the basic Gospel message!
but even so, it really comes down to the individuals themselves. The same church may have people who are saved, and some who are not, because their personal walk with the Lord is what really counts.
But of course, we can never know that, because we are not the judge of people's hearts. That is why the doctrine of the church is so important to be agreed on. Once it is defined and explained, and there is no division in the essentials, people are then able to judge their own hearts. But when a church is teaching wholesale error, the person who dissents could potentially be in a better position for salvation...?
Moreover, faith is not simply or only a personal thing. It has social and communal ramifications that a "Personal Lord and Saviour, Holy Spirit and Me" approach loses. Of course Jesus comes to each of us personally, and we all receive His Spirit. But the Church itself is important and essential to the Christian life and the faith.
The same is true of the Catholic church. Some are really saved, and some are not, depending on their individual walk with God.
Many would argue that this is more apparent in the Catholic Church than anywhere else. I'm not sure I agree anymore, though. But your point stands. The Catholic Church, however, has never held to a once-saved-always-saved, minimal requirement description of salvation, though.
And in this sense, there is one area of Catholic doctrine that I view as problematic. It involves mediators (including an institutional mediator). A mediator conflicts with the model I gave because it ‘intercepts’ our direct faith in God, rather than funneling it through to Him, or vice versa.
You have a funny definition of mediator if it equals "interception".
This is because God only accepts one Mediator, and that is Jesus Himself (1 Tim 2:5); other mediators are actually sidetracks to another end, and our faith in God is derailed through them.
We've been over this repeatedly, and that simply is not the case.
This is why it is very important to understand the role of leaders, who, like the Holy Spirit, should come ‘along side us’ (parakletos) but not come ‘in between’ us and the Lord.
It seems to me that you are the only one with this misunderstanding.
We must all have our own relationship with Jesus, and not depend on others to have the relationship for us.
Duh...?
Now, if we are Catholic because we fully agree with their teachings – that’s one thing. Even if we don’t fully understand but we are taking it by faith - that has merit as well. It keeps the direct link of consciousness to God intact. It still means the clergy has effectively ‘come along side’ in their ministry, and that’s okay. It’s probably okay to go along with them generally, too, and have some quiet, personal reservations on particular points.
Well, thanks for your permission. As for "quiet reservations" about their teaching, if they're teaching on an area that has not been dogmatically defined, then yes, of course you can dissent. But to have "reservations" about a defined matter of faith or morals, your "reservations" better be of the sort where you honestly can't see it but are willing to approach Jesus about it and let Him help you see.
The problem arises when we must choose between Christ and church, and we close our eyes to the Lord and choose man instead.
Thankfully, that's a moot point. How does one choose the Head and not the Body, or the Body but not the Head?
That is where my concern lies, and the whole point of my exhortation. I hope, pray, and believe that whatever other disagreements we may have, this is something we can agree upon. And if we do, we are not nearly as far apart as we may think.
Perhaps. Our disagreement, it seems, lies mainly in a fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic position, and a misunderstanding that, when corrected, refuses to be altered.
Slave,
The difference between the dissensions in the Catholic Church, and the disagreements in the Protestant Church are simply that in the Catholic Church, when a dogma has been defined, you can point to people who dissent against it and say, "You're wrong. Get in line, or there will be repercussions." To others, we can say, "They're wrong. What they teach is not the Catholic Faith; it is something else. If you want to be Catholic, this is the faith."
Does that mean people won't dissent? Of course not. As Chris has said, the Church is made up of sinners. But when the sinners rebel against the teachings, it is obvious that they are in fact rebelling, and not adhering to the Faith that they claim to hold.
On the other hand, Protestantism has no such authority to say "x is not Christian", because when someone teaches "y" and are criticised for it, they can appeal to their interpretation of Scripture, saying, well, the Bible tells me so. I have the Holy Spirit as well as you! Who is to say I'm wrong and you're right? Then the church splits, and voila, a new church or even a new denomination!
And often these splits are on central issues of the faith: Are sacraments efficaceous? Do we have free will? Did Christ die for everyone? Can I lose my salvation?
It would be nice if we could say, "The only differences are over contemporary or traditional music." But that is simply not the case!
Heh. Your question about the "Catholic" or the "Protestant" fourth commandment furthers the point! The Lutherans, Orthodox, and even the Jews! divide the Commandments up in the "Catholic" way. So even Protestants (Lutherans) disagree over the "Protestant" division of the 14 imperative commands in Exodus 20.
And I have never argued that Catholic Dogma was handed down by the Fathers unchanged until today. Rather, Catholic dogma has been handed down by the Apostles in a kernel form, and has been developed consistently by their successors throughout the centuries--like an acorn into an Oak, to use the simile of John Henry Cardinal Newman, or the mustard seed into the mustard tree parable of Jesus (Matt 13:31-32).
Cardinal Newman, in his essay "On the Development of Christian Doctrine", went through generation by generation the doctrines of the Church, showing how in each generation previous that doctrine could be found, perhaps in a less developed form, all the way back to the Apostles. He began his research as an Anglican, but by the end of it, converted to Catholicism.
He is the one who wrote the dictum, "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."
You can read the essay online, here: The Development of Christian Doctrine
Gregory,
I look at these two points that you have stated:
"869 The Church is apostolic. She is built upon a lasting foundation: 'the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Matt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: [This part right here][Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, again).]
[And this one] [Biblically speaking, the Church is called many things, "The family of God", "The Bride of Christ", "The New Jerusalem", "The Kingdom of Heaven", and many others.] The first mention of Church in the Bible is by Jesus, after Peter's confession of faith in Matthew 16. Jesus tells Simon that He is Peter (or "Rock") and upon this Rock He will build His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. He makes Peter the Steward of the Kingdom, by giving him the Keys of the Kingdom (an allusion to Isaiah 22). Later, in John, after Peter's denial, and Jesus' resurrection, Jesus three times has Peter affirm his love for Jesus, and each time Jesus commands him to feed or tend His sheep (John 21).
By saying this, that completely limits the Church of Christ to the Roman Catholic Church.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.< [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.]
With these three statements, anyone who has a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His death and Resurection, but is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, does not have Eternal life. The only wiggle room that was in any of those statements was for someone who has never heard of Christ.
Also, the statment that the Church is needed for Salvation is just not true.
Romans 10:5-17
The Message of Salvation to All
"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
Now I do understand that the Church can be and is very instumental in sending and teaching, however, only the Word of God and Jesus Christ are needed for Salvation.
Also by stating that because a Protestant can't have the fullest relationship with Christ because they don't believe as the Roman Catholics believe about Baptism and The Lord's Supper, you limit the Power of Christ.
I guess the way I see everything that has been stated so far is this:
I view the Roman Catholic Church like Paul talked about His Jewish brothers, who were so zealous about the law (in the Catholic case, zealous over doctrines that are not what Loren has stated above: [These include our doctrinal understanding of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (and thus, between them, the doctrine of the Trinity), faith, grace, and the gospel.]), that they condemned the gentiles who found freedom in Christ.
I have given my life to Christ, and where He leads me, I will follow. He leads me through His Word and the Guidance of His Holy Spirit. I have in the earthly sence the fullest of relationships with Jesus Christ, and it will be perfected on the day that I die, or at the time of His return.
There is salvation apart from the Roman Catholic Faith.
However I do have an interesting question for you. If you believe everthing that the Roman Catholic Church states, were you "saved" before you "converted" to Catholocism? I put converted in quotes, because you can't really convert from Christianity to Christianity. So, I am thinking that you don't believe Protestantism to be Christianity.
O.K. I'm done with that, my mind is running in circles, ahhhh.
Dr. Freeman,
Honor your Father and Mother is the 5th Commandment. My point was the difference in the 10 Commandments between the Catholic Church and protestants.
Exodus 20:1-17 [crf. Deuteronomy 5:1-21] from the New American Bible:
1 Then God delivered all these commandments: (2) “I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
1st Commandment
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
2nd Commandment
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; (5) you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; (6) but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3rd Commandment
7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
4th Commandment
8 “Remember to keep holy the sabbath day. (9) Six days you may labor and do all your work, (10) but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you. (11) In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
5th Commandment
12 “Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
6th Commandment
13 “You shall not kill.
7th Commandment
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
8th Commandment
15 “You shall not steal.
9th Commandment
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10th Commandment
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.”
I am fully aware sir, that the Catholic Catechism Canons 2075 - 2557 list the 10 Commandments as:
1. You Shall have no other gods besides me
2. You Shall not take the name of the Lord in vain
3. Remember the sabbath and keep it holy
4. Honor your Father and Mother
5. You shall not kill
6. You shall not commit adultery
7. You shall not steal
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
While it is ‘noble’ to seek unity between the Catholic Church and the Reformation Churches (Protestants):
That can only be possible if one of two things happens:
1. The Catholic Church changes or repeals a number of ‘infallible decrees’ including most of the decrees of the Council of Trent et.al.
OR
2. protestant churches submit to the authority of the Catholic Church which would include accepting (with docility):
- the infallibility of the Pope
- the ‘Absolute Authority’ of the Catholic Church
- Salvation through Sacraments
- Marian Devotion
- Catholic interpretation of all scripture
- the ‘Apocrypha’ as ‘Divinely Inspired’
- all doctrines, decrees, and traditions of the Catholic Church without question.
I, personally, have been neither convinced nor convicted of these ‘truths’ of the Catholic Church nor its fundamental claim as the ‘Mother’ Church, especially or in light of the ‘arguments’ presented in this Q&A.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark 1:17 said...
Gregory,
I look at these two points that you have stated:
"869 The Church is apostolic. She is built upon a lasting foundation: 'the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Matt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: [This part right here][Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, again).]
[And this one] [Biblically speaking, the Church is called many things, "The family of God", "The Bride of Christ", "The New Jerusalem", "The Kingdom of Heaven", and many others.] The first mention of Church in the Bible is by Jesus, after Peter's confession of faith in Matthew 16. Jesus tells Simon that He is Peter (or "Rock") and upon this Rock He will build His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. He makes Peter the Steward of the Kingdom, by giving him the Keys of the Kingdom (an allusion to Isaiah 22). Later, in John, after Peter's denial, and Jesus' resurrection, Jesus three times has Peter affirm his love for Jesus, and each time Jesus commands him to feed or tend His sheep (John 21).
By saying this, that completely limits the Church of Christ to the Roman Catholic Church.
I guess the question would be, then, did this definition originate before or after there were other alternatives to the Catholic Church? If it was before, and the writings of the Fathers would bear that out, then it should be self-evident that groups not meeting this criteria would easily be recognised as missing something.
Sorry, I'm really not going to candy-coat this--especially since we've been over all this on your blog, which I linked to, and you have yet to add anything new to the discussion.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.< [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.]
With these three statements, anyone who has a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His death and Resurection, but is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, does not have Eternal life. The only wiggle room that was in any of those statements was for someone who has never heard of Christ.
Since Protestantism derives everything in itself that is true directly from Catholic teaching, and since you practice valid baptism and put your faith in Christ, you can be saved. However, to know that the Church is the fullness of truth, and to live in defiance of that, certainly would exclude you from His salvific gift.
Also, the statment that the Church is needed for Salvation is just not true.
Romans 10:5-17
The Message of Salvation to All
"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
"The word of faith that we proclaim"--the "we" is the Apostles, the representatives of the Church. Without the Church, the word would not be near you, neither in your mouth or in your heart!
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
This last part indicates the need for the Church, and not the other way around!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
Now I do understand that the Church can be and is very instumental in sending and teaching, however, only the Word of God and Jesus Christ are needed for Salvation.
But the Church is needed for the proclamation of the Word of Jesus Christ! Note that the passage doesn't say, "you are saved by the word that you read" but by the word that you heard." The Church was the instrument of the propagation of the word before the invention of the printing press, and even now, it is the instrument bringing that word to new places where Christ has never been heard before! You can't have "the saving word of Christ" without "the Church". As such, no matter what Loren wants to say to the contrary, the Church mediates Christ to the world!
Also by stating that because a Protestant can't have the fullest relationship with Christ because they don't believe as the Roman Catholics believe about Baptism and The Lord's Supper, you limit the Power of Christ.
I am not denying that they can't have a relationship with Christ, but by denying the sacramental graces that He chooses to give us, you are denying His gifts! If you deny something He chooses to give you, you ipso facto are limiting the relationship. This isn't me limiting Him in your life, it is you, yourself!
I guess the way I see everything that has been stated so far is this:
I view the Roman Catholic Church like Paul talked about His Jewish brothers, who were so zealous about the law (in the Catholic case, zealous over doctrines that are not what Loren has stated above: [These include our doctrinal understanding of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (and thus, between them, the doctrine of the Trinity), faith, grace, and the gospel.]), that they condemned the gentiles who found freedom in Christ.
Well, I have to submit that you see it wrong, since the "gentiles" of your analogy, the Protestants, clearly don't even agree on those doctrines that Loren laid out above.
I have given my life to Christ, and where He leads me, I will follow. He leads me through His Word and the Guidance of His Holy Spirit. I have in the earthly sence the fullest of relationships with Jesus Christ, and it will be perfected on the day that I die, or at the time of His return.
Yet you deny plain teachings of Christ in Scripture. Explain that to me.
There is salvation apart from the Roman Catholic Faith.
Yes, there is, in the sense that one can be saved without being Catholic--but there is so much more to the Faith than Heaven when you die.
However I do have an interesting question for you. If you believe everthing that the Roman Catholic Church states, were you "saved" before you "converted" to Catholocism?
I was saved, yes. But I was missing out on the fullness of what Christ had to offer. He was calling me deeper.
I put converted in quotes, because you can't really convert from Christianity to Christianity.
I appreciate then that you acknowledge Catholicism as a Christian religion. Many Protestants don't. But in a sense, it was a real conversion, because I had to radically alter many of my views about the faith, just as you, or Loren, or Slave would if you too decided to become Catholics. That's not a slight, that's just the truth. There is a lot that we disagree on.
So, I am thinking that you don't believe Protestantism to be Christianity.
You would be wrong in so thinking. As Pope Benedict has said, Protestants are an incomplete version of Christianity, but they are still Christian.
And I answered this question on your blog as well:
"Catholic is the same as Christian (which is why the Church since the earliest centuries has called itself Catholic. It wasn't a name we gave ourselves after the Reformation).
"Apostolic Succession refers to the Church's leadership, rather than its membership (which would be the Catholic part of the definition). This is one of the most important parts of the Church's definition, because it is the basis of authority in the Church, according to Scripture. This is a major dividing point among Protestants and Catholics (and even different groups of Protestants). Without identifiable leadership that goes generation by generation back to the Apostles, how can you be sure that what your leadership teaches is the authentic interpretation of Scripture. This is what is meant by the Church being apostolic.
"That is not to say that other Christian denominations are without saving faith. The Catholic Church does not teach that (in fact, it teaches the opposite). However, this quality of apostolic succession is the guarantee (through the Holy Spirit) that the Catholic faith contains the fullness of truth about Christ, which is why she alone makes the audacious claim for herself that she is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). I've never met another legit Protestant denomination make that claim, and while I've heard cultic sects make it, they are unable to back it up.
...
"The Catholic Church has some official teaching on Protestantism:
"The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body--here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism--do not occur without human sin...'However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 817-818).
"'The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,...subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines' (Lumen Gentium 8)" (CCC 870).
"Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that all faithful Christians are just that: Christians. The disunity between us is a grave matter, and one that must be worked hard at to overcome--but we are indeed brothers."
O.K. I'm done with that, my mind is running in circles, ahhhh.
I can see that, since we've had this discussion already!
Sir,
My biggest problem with Catholicism is the ALL or NOTHING proposition & position of the Catholic Church.
If I do not accept [with a clear conscience] ALL the doctrines, decrees, and traditions of the Catholic Church - I can not be a Catholic...That means that a 'small' doctrinal disagreement, if declared as 'doctrine' by the Catholic Church is enough to disqualify acceptance into the Church...that is not even addressing large issues like 'Sacramental Salvation'.
If I believe that Revelation 12 is NOT a direct reference to Mary...that is enough to disqualify acceptance into the Church. Or, should I convert to Catholicism, should I ever disagree with such a statement, that is enough to 'brand' me a heretic, schismatic, latae sententiae excommunicated, or worse - Anathema
I see something intrinsically wrong with that...
To me it means my 'faith' must be IN the Catholic Church not in Jesus Christ - that the Catholic Church has 'divined' all the answers and interpretations of the Bible that apply to my life and worship - my faith is then in the Church’s Answers, not in Jesus - since the Church has already done all the 'Berean' searching for me... I become an infant suckling at the 'breast' of Mother Church, totally relying on 'Her' to meet all my Spiritual needs... Whenever I have a 'question' I no longer "search the Scriptures daily", I search the Catechism.
Blessings in Christ.
I like this blog - what template is used? Thanks from a Clothing Accessory info site.
Slave, you're seriously going to make an issue out of the numbering of the 10 Commandment?! As I pointed out, there are 14 imperative statements in the 10 Commandments. The Catholic Church follows the Jewish delineation, as do the Lutherans. Either way, whether "Honour your mother and father" is 4th or 5th is as artificial as the chapter-verse indications in the Bible!
Unchained Slave said...
Dr. Freeman,
Honor your Father and Mother is the 5th Commandment. My point was the difference in the 10 Commandments between the Catholic Church and protestants.
Must be nice to simplify it that way. Unfortunately, this is yet another thing that Protestants don't have unity in!
Exodus 20:1-17 [crf. Deuteronomy 5:1-21] from the New American Bible:
1 Then God delivered all these commandments: (2) “I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
1st Commandment
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
2nd Commandment
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; (5) you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; (6) but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3rd Commandment
7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
4th Commandment
Remember to keep holy the sabbath day. (9) Six days you may labor and do all your work, (10) but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you. (11) In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
5th Commandment
"Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
6th Commandment
13 “You shall not kill.
7th Commandment
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
8th Commandment
15 “You shall not steal.
9th Commandment
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10th Commandment
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.”
I am fully aware sir, that the Catholic Catechism Canons 2075 - 2557 list the 10 Commandments as:
1. You Shall have no other gods besides me
2. You Shall not take the name of the Lord in vain
3. Remember the sabbath and keep it holy
4. Honor your Father and Mother
5. You shall not kill
6. You shall not commit adultery
7. You shall not steal
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
Honestly, what is your point?
While it is ‘noble’ to seek unity between the Catholic Church and the Reformation Churches (Protestants):
"Noble". You sound rather cynical. It's more than "noble", it's a biblical mandate!
That can only be possible if one of two things happens:
1. The Catholic Church changes or repeals a number of ‘infallible decrees’ including most of the decrees of the Council of Trent et.al.
Which, of course, is impossible if they are, in fact, infallible. It would literally be exchanging the truth for a lie.
OR
2. protestant churches submit to the authority of the Catholic Church which would include accepting (with docility):
- the infallibility of the Pope
- the ‘Absolute Authority’ of the Catholic Church
- Salvation through Sacraments
- Marian Devotion
- Catholic interpretation of all scripture
(Just a note here, Catholicism has only authoritatively defined the meaning of a mere 21 or so verses of Scripture, and even then, they say that the dogmatic interpretation must be believed, but not exclusively to alternate, but non-contradictory, interpretations.)
- the ‘Apocrypha’ as ‘Divinely Inspired’
- all doctrines, decrees, and traditions of the Catholic Church without question.
#2 is more likely than #1. But of course, "with docility" would be more preferably, "with zeal".
I, personally, have been neither convinced nor convicted of these ‘truths’ of the Catholic Church nor its fundamental claim as the ‘Mother’ Church, especially or in light of the ‘arguments’ presented in this Q&A.
Thank you for your honesty. I likewise have failed to see anything persuasive come from Protestant arguments here. Most of them amount to a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic self-understanding, and quoting Scripture isn't going to help, since the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures, and isn't about to say, "Hey! I can't believe I never noticed that before!" to something like 1 Timothy 2:5.
God bless.
(Oh, and Chris isn't a doctor!)
Hi anonymous clothing blogger, the template is "Minima Black", but I edited the colour of the titles to be blue instead of the pale green.
Thanks for stopping by.
Sir,
My biggest problem with Catholicism is the ALL or NOTHING proposition & position of the Catholic Church.
This, incidentally, is the same problem many have with Christ Himself. "He was a great teacher, but He's not my Lord! Why should I have to give my life to Him?"
He makes that claim on us. The Church that He founded also makes that claim on us, in a secondary sense. If the Church is truly the Body of Christ who is the Head, should we expect it to be otherwise? The all-or-nothing approach was one of the major attractants to the Catholic Church. I already knew when I left Pentecostalism, that whatever I joined, I had to join all or nothing. So I looked for one that agreed with my interpretation of things. There is nothing. I realised that I needed to be humble enough to accept that a church knew more than I did. The only Church that demanded that of me, in the end, was the Catholic Church, and while I had reservations, I submitted to her authority, asking God to enlighten my understanding.
As St. Anslem said, "I believe in order that I may understand."
If I do not accept [with a clear conscience] ALL the doctrines, decrees, and traditions of the Catholic Church - I can not be a Catholic...
This is simply untrue. I joined before I believed everything. The difference was, I was willing to investigate and pray over everything, and didn't come to it with an attitude of "You're wrong. But I want in anyway." Who actually would do that?
That means that a 'small' doctrinal disagreement, if declared as 'doctrine' by the Catholic Church is enough to disqualify acceptance into the Church...that is not even addressing large issues like 'Sacramental Salvation'.
If it was big enough to declare infallibly as doctrine, it's big enough to have some importance in our faith!
If I believe that Revelation 12 is NOT a direct reference to Mary...that is enough to disqualify acceptance into the Church.
I don't believe that the Church has definitively ruled on Revelation 12. However, the Marian imagery is obvious. After all, what other woman gave birth to the Messiah? But at the same time, the Church teaches that this interpretation is not contradictory to the Woman representing the nation of Israel, or of representing the Church. However, in the fullest sense, it seems to me, that only Mary fully fulfils the imagery of this passage.
Thankfully, though, you are fully free to disagree with that conclusion.
Or, should I convert to Catholicism, should I ever disagree with such a statement, that is enough to 'brand' me a heretic, schismatic, latae sententiae excommunicated, or worse - Anathema
Anathema=excommunicated. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching! And you refuse to examine it and see that your caricatures might not be the actual case!
Having doubts about the faith is natural. We all do. In wrestling with those doubts in a sincere desire for greater faith, there is grace. However, "doubt" as a lifestyle of cynicism or scepticism is sinful. And proclaiming those "doubts" and attacking the Church with them, brings sentencing, which is a biblical injunction!
I see something intrinsically wrong with that...
That is because there is something intrinsically wrong with your understanding of the Body of Christ.
To me it means my 'faith' must be IN the Catholic Church not in Jesus Christ
You, like Loren, are creating a false dichotomy and a contradiction where none exists--on the one hand caricaturing Catholicism, and on the other, disembodying Christ.
- that the Catholic Church has 'divined' all the answers and interpretations of the Bible that apply to my life and worship -
This is simply not the case.
my faith is then in the Church’s Answers, not in Jesus - since the Church has already done all the 'Berean' searching for me...
You are compounding misunderstanding upon misunderstanding, and caricature upon caricature.
I become an infant suckling at the 'breast' of Mother Church,
We should all have faith like a child ;)
totally relying on 'Her' to meet all my Spiritual needs... Whenever I have a 'question' I no longer "search the Scriptures daily", I search the Catechism.
Do you actually have a need to "reinvent the wheel"? When the Church has an answer, why do you feel a need to reject it in order to figure it out for yourself? Should you go back and reexamine your views on Jesus Himself, or the Trinity? The Catholic Church defined and dogmatically declared those doctrines, as well!
Blessings in Christ.
You as well!
That's it for now; I'm going home!
It is almost not worth it, but,
Excommunicated does not equal Anathema - Check the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
This is something I have visited and re-examined continually since 'meeting' you - are you sure you understand the difference?
Yes, I am creating a 'false' dichotomy when I do not recognize the 'Catholic Church' as THE Body of Christ, with the 'authority' that the Church has interpreted as belonging solely to itself.
Canon 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Canon 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
You contradict yourself: This is simply not the case. & We should all have faith like a child ;) as to the 'definitive' teaching of the Church and interpretation of the Scriptures.
Do you actually have a need to "reinvent the wheel"? When the Church has an answer, why do you feel a need to reject it in order to figure it out for yourself? Should you go back and reexamine your views on Jesus Himself, or the Trinity? The Catholic Church defined and dogmatically declared those doctrines, as well!
Yes, I do need to 'reinvent' the wheel, if the 'Church's' answers raises questions that are not answered, but then again, I am not (as a Catholic) allowed to (see Canons 85 & 100).
God Bless & Goodnight,
PS. I did say, If I was Catholic, should I ever disagree with such a statement, that is enough to 'brand' me a heretic, schismatic, latae sententiae excommunicated, or worse - Anathema
Unchained Slave said...
It is almost not worth it, but,
Excommunicated does not equal Anathema - Check the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
This is something I have visited and re-examined continually since 'meeting' you - are you sure you understand the difference?
Did you read the entire article on "anathema"?
"In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful."
"At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics."
"At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication."
Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected."
Yes, I am creating a 'false' dichotomy when I do not recognize the 'Catholic Church' as THE Body of Christ, with the 'authority' that the Church has interpreted as belonging solely to itself.
I believe the argument was that the church is the body of Christ (not specifically the Catholic Church, at that point) and that you can't separate the need for the Church from the need for Christ. The argument proceeded that, if this is true, then such a Church must have some amount of binding authority--and if indeed it is linked to Christ in such a mystical way, would share in His Truth, since He is truth. Thus, the Church can be called the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Only one church that I have ever met has taken that biblical scripture seriously. If you wish to ignore it, then that, it would seem, is your issue. And yes, it is a "false" dichotomy.
Canon 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
To whom would you rather give the task of interpreting the Word of God? Each and every individual person? (2 Peter 2:20) We see how well that's worked out so far. I still don't see how disagreements are resolved in that scenario.
So yes, the authority to interpret the the Word of God is given to the Church, especially the Bishops in union with the Pope. But they have not ruled definitively on each and every issue, and where they haven't discussion and disagreement are still permitted. In fact, pretty much the only time the Church rules dogmatically on an issue is when some contraversy has arisen over it, and a decision must be made.
Canon 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
Indeed.
You contradict yourself: This is simply not the case.
Was a response to the statement,
"-that the Catholic Church has 'divined' all the answers and interpretations of the Bible that apply to my life and worship -"
So, no, this is not the case, since the Church has not dogmatically ruled on absolutely everything.
& We should all have faith like a child ;) as to the 'definitive' teaching of the Church and interpretation of the Scriptures.
Should we not have faith like a child? Granted, that was tongue in cheek to your comparison to us being infants at the breast of Mother Church. God doesn't want us to remain infantile in our faith, but He doesn't want us to become presumptuously arrogant teenagers whose parents don't know anything, either. There's a balance.
Do you actually have a need to "reinvent the wheel"? When the Church has an answer, why do you feel a need to reject it in order to figure it out for yourself? Should you go back and reexamine your views on Jesus Himself, or the Trinity? The Catholic Church defined and dogmatically declared those doctrines, as well!
Yes, I do need to 'reinvent' the wheel, if the 'Church's' answers raises questions that are not answered, but then again, I am not (as a Catholic) allowed to (see Canons 85 & 100).
No, as Catholics, we aren't allowed to simply reject everything and start over. And really, if you have no questions about how the faith works together, then you've seriously limited God. According to CS Lewis, who was referring to Trinitarian doctrine, a faith that you can figure out completely was probably made by man.
On the one hand, Catholicism has an authoritative interpretive body to help us from going off the deep end into heresy, and to show us when in fact we have. On the other hand, that same Magesterium acknowledges and proclaims that much about our faith is simply a mystery--that we'll never comprehend it here on earth.
For example, the Catholic Church holds simultaneously that God predestines people, and that people have free will. While Protestantism has split into two major competing ideologies over this issue (Calvinism and Arminianism--which at points are so vastly different that they disagree fundamentally over some of the things pertaining to Loren's 6 minimum doctrines necessary for being a Christian), Catholicism holds that it is a mystery how God's predestination and man's free will cooperate. Yes, some of the most brilliant thinkers (St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Duns Scotus, for example) have wrestled with the idea, but the Church has not pronounced Thomism or Molinism (the two major Catholic schools on this subject) to be infallibly correct. So I'm free to be a Thomist on this issue, or a Molinist. So far, I'm a Molinist, but admittedly, I haven't really researched the Thomist's perspective. But I digress.
PS. I did say, If I was Catholic, should I ever disagree with such a statement, that is enough to 'brand' me a heretic, schismatic, latae sententiae excommunicated, or worse - Anathema
Yes, you did. But to my mind, part of your reason for rejecting Catholicism is your seemingly irrational fear of Church governance--that you are worried you'll somehow slip up and get booted out.
Either way, this open forum isn't primarily for you, but for the Youth of St. Andrew's. Secondarily it's for you and any other reader who happens along and wants to join in--but for those who are Catholic here, I want to make sure that they don't somehow think that your misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology is somehow mistaken for the truth of the thing.
And the fact that you think that your disagreement over a text of Scripture that has not been defined as referring explicitly or exclusively to Mary (though it is held to be for obvious reasons--and really, if Proverbs 30:5-6 can be marshalled as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, then how can you deny a Marian interpretation of Revelation 12?) would make you a heretic or schismatic, is patently ridiculous, and I'm sorry for saying so. It betrays your fundamental misunderstanding, or worse, caricaturing, of Catholic ecclesiology and theology!
So yeah, anyway,
Church=Body of Christ=Kingdom of Heaven=Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
God bless!
Gregory,
I've long admired your ability to hold to a concise, effective, and Scriptural apologetic. Your last post was a wonderful example of your growing erudition, and more than capable brain-power.
Excellently defended. Wonderfully reasoned!
Cheers!
Christopher J. Freeman
Thanks, Chris. 'Preciate it. And also your own help and honest participation here.
God bless!
Gregory,
Have you read my latest entries at Bona Fide? I thought you might enjoy them; I'm posting a rather lengthy essay on the Gnostic Crisis of the 1st and 2nd century. You know, the one where the Catholic Church (in utero) kicked much posterior, in the name of Jesus, of course?! ;)
Christopher J. Freeman
Hello Gregory! 'Christopher's wife here- it's been too long since we've all been together!
Anyway, Christopher encouraged me to read your open Q&A and I was only able to get through half of it (2 boys, ages just-turned-two and just-turned-one, and seven months pregnant; you get the idea), so I'm really sorry if my question has already been answered. If it has, please just direct me to the post.
You have mentioned a few times that Mary's salvation through God's grace happened at her conception. I have no problem with that. My question is from what followed this assertion, that she was saved before she sinned as opposed to the rest of us who were saved after we sinned (I'm assuming you mean saved once baptism occurred, which is clearly after our sin, since we were conceived in sin). My understanding (that might be the wrong word) is that Christ died for our sins for all time for all people (yes, I do mean all- even those who will not be saved for lack of faith)
So how could there be a before our sin and an after our sin distinction. Again, I'm not contending that Mary was saved at conception (clearly she wouldn't have been baptised, or circumcised for that matter), or that she wasn't granted a special covenant relationship with God at conception- just the idea of before and after.
Chronologically, Christ died for me before I was conceived, but eternally speaking, His sacrifice was simply complete, and not subject to or overriding any continuum of time (enter here the Eucharist and of course God’s revealed eternal nature). I think this might be a philosophical dilemma, but I'm not really sure- Being pregnant for three years takes it's toll on the brain... (strengthens the heart, though).
Anyway, I guess it can seem ambiguous to defend Mary’s immaculate conception with a before and after distinction relating to Christ’s atonement.
I hope you will respond. I look forward to your reply and have enjoyed your blog site very much.
23 pounds so far,
Sarah
Chris & Sarah,
Congrats on the children! Believe me, my wife and I know the feeling (our oldest is almost 3, second is almost 2, third is almost 3 months.) Of course, during those times when I think I just can't find any more energy......I think of my grandparents. They had 14 children (one stillborn) in just over 20 years. My father is the oldest of them all, and his recollection of what a struggle it was for them to raise that many children on a modest dairy farm is simple unimaginable by today's standards. But he also recalls how blessed they were, in each other, in their Faith, and in the witness of charity their parents had towards life, in all its shapes and sizes.
Psalms 127:4-5...."Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so too are the children born in one's youth. Blessed is he who's quiver is full, for he shall never be shamed...."
Amen to that!
Hey Sarah! Congratulations!
Melissa and I would love to get together sometime...someday. We're so busy now between work and marriage plans and painting the appartment...But I mentioned it to her, and she was really pleased with the idea. :)
Anyway, to go back to your question about Mary...
I love that you make reference to the fact that Christ's sacrifice was complete even before He died literally nearly 2000 years ago.
Mary's salvation involves an understanding of how, exactly, sin affects us. Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are all born in the state of original sin--that is, to be deprived of the original holiness and righteousness that Adam and Eve were created with. "Human nature...is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called 'concupiscence.' Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle" (Catechism, #405). Basically, through baptism (infant or adult) we are free from original sin in the sense that we are no longer oriented away from God, but now are turned back toward Him. His life of Grace in us brings us ever closer to Him, and we are members of His covenant family again, reversing Adam's exile (excommunication) from Eden.
However, the effects of original sin still linger: death, suffering, ignorance, and that pesky desire to sin (cf. Romans 7). Adam and Eve weren't born with any of those qualities, but were made perfect, in the image of God. The rest of mankind, however, inherited those qualities with their sin nature.
Now, when we come to Mary, and to the doctrine of the Immaculate conception, we say that God saved her "before she sinned" in the sense that He kept her pure (immaculate) from the stain (consequences: death, concupiscence, etc.) of original sin. In effect, God allowed her to be born in the same state in which He created Adam and Eve. Thus, Christ's sacrifice, which you rightly admit was perfect even before His incarnation, saved Mary by a unique act of grace. Thus not only was she saved before she sinned (ie. her sins forgiven before she'd committed them), but she was saved from actually committing any sin. She still could have chosen to sin, as Adam and Eve had, but she was not under the burden of concupiscence, as we all are.
Please, understand that the Catholic Church doesn't somehow teach that this was necessary in order that Christ would be the Sinless Son of God. Rather, it was a fitting thing. Mary, as a fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant, was made pure and holy by God in order to be a suitable vessel for Him.
I hope that answers your question--and no, I don't think I'd gone into it at that depth already.
God bless! Good to hear from you!
Hi Gregory,
I haven’t checked your blog for a while, been busy with some other things. It looks like the debate goes on – but I’m afraid not for me. Stepping away from it for a few days has allowed me to see things in a broader perspective.
Gregory, you are really a very articulate person, and very good at research with hundreds of years of Catechisms at your command. In that sense, I think your defense of Catholicism has been exemplary. However, from a broader perspective, the general trend of the argument has become all too clear:
Sorting through all of the points on canons, papacies, interpretations, etc., let us focus on how they speak to us of Jesus Himself. This is the truly important thing, for in Him the truth may be known. And when I do this, I see the true conflict emerging at last. In all of my arguments, I’ve tried my best to point everyone to Jesus. But in order to answer my arguments, essentially, Catholicism has always had to point us away from Him. And that was the true battleground all along – not only in my eyes, but more importantly in the eyes of the Lord.
Jesus is the Son over His own house, whose house we are if hold fast our confidence in Him. Our faith is really that simple and direct. He is commended to every man’s conscience that we may know Him for ourselves, for he is the Head of every man. But in the things you’ve represented from your Catechisms, I’m sorry to see a pattern of encroachment evinced. Catholicism emerges at last as a steady infringement of our liberty in Christ, a quest for dominion over our faith, through presenting itself as an institutional mediator.
Let us count the ways in which the Lord may be known directly, for ourselves. Through our fealty, through the Scriptures, through conscience and our faith, through obedience, through praise, through communion, through prayer and confession, and finally through death itself. But without much effort we may see how Catholicism inserts a mediator at each of those steps, be they departed saints, counsels, popes, priests or purgatory. As such, our very relationship is mediated and placed at risk. When Jesus said “depart from Me, I never knew you”, the Greek word means ‘an acquaintance’, showing that the relationship was intended to work both ways. It means they never came to know Him, either:
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(John 17:3)
I should also be clear in saying this, that I do not necessarily hand the laurels to any of the Protestant churches either. We all must decrease, and He must increase, and an immense effort lies ahead of us all. And it will not be accomplished through the strength of man.
Gregory, I also want to be clear in a personal sense. I’m not for a minute trying to say that you don’t know the Lord. You passed the ‘spiritual test’ which certainly speaks loudly to a person like me. I also do not mean to impugn anyone else here, but rather, to provoke them to a better perspective. For the ramifications of this argument go far beyond our debating of this day (2 John 9).
I should also be clear, that I believe there are true Christians in almost every church – yes, sometimes in spite of what their church teaches, for God does not leave Himself without a witness among them. Sometimes these persons simply do not know the church teachings that would offend the Lord, so they have stumbled into a relationship with Him in spite of them. Or sometimes they do know of those teachings, but in a quiet consciousness to Christ they reserve themselves from them, and abide in something genuine between the Lord and themselves instead. May God give them courage, for the days of their trial will come.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Gregory, I know you well enough to know that you’ll want to take ‘bites’ from this posting and comment on them, and I’m sure your catechisms will give you some scholarly answers. Yet the heart of these words will remain. For whoever falls upon this rock will be broken; but on whomever it falls it will grind him to powder. The specific arguments behind this perspective have already been made, in earlier comments, and will stand as the Lord opens our understanding of them. In short, there is nothing left for me to do here but to wish you well, and that I most heartily do. May the Lord be magnified in your life. May He give you strength in the days to come.
Loren,
Thank you for your thoughts, compliments, and for speaking from your heart. I appreciate what you have said, and truly agree that Jesus is our focus.
Yesterday, I attended the ordination as bishop of the priest who was instrumental in my becoming a Catholic. At the ordination ceremony, the message behind the entire liturgy touched on everything that we have discussed--and it was boiled down to this point:
"You have been appointed to shepherd the churches, to teach the truth of the Gospel, and to model Jesus Christ in your life. You are the servant of the Churches."
Anyway, you're right. I am going to make some points based on what you said. I tried to resist the temptation to do so, but rereading your post, you seemed to miss the fundamental points of the discussion.
loren said...
Hi Gregory,
I haven’t checked your blog for a while, been busy with some other things. It looks like the debate goes on
It always does...
– but I’m afraid not for me. Stepping away from it for a few days has allowed me to see things in a broader perspective.
Gregory, you are really a very articulate person, and very good at research with hundreds of years of Catechisms at your command. In that sense, I think your defense of Catholicism has been exemplary.
Thank you. Many times it wasn't easy, and many others it has been downright frustrating.
However, from a broader perspective, the general trend of the argument has become all too clear:
Funny, seeing as I still think you've missed it completely, sorry to say.
Sorting through all of the points on canons, papacies, interpretations, etc., let us focus on how they speak to us of Jesus Himself.
I have tried to do so at every point. Where it hasn't been explicit, I apologise. The arguments themselves did not always lend themselves to explicit Christology. However, I believe that everything that the Church is is strictly dependent on Christ Himself--so that every argument for the nature of the papacy, interpretations, and the rest, has been an implicit argument for Christ. Moreover, I would wager that I have taught the truth about who Christ is and our absolute need of Him in all of my arguments.
This is the truly important thing, for in Him the truth may be known.
Amen.
And when I do this, I see the true conflict emerging at last. In all of my arguments, I’ve tried my best to point everyone to Jesus. But in order to answer my arguments, essentially, Catholicism has always had to point us away from Him.
I did then, and I do now seriously contend that that is the case. Your argument has been that we need only Christ, independent on any other thing whatsoever save possibly the Scriptures--and yet, you have not clearly articulated how one is to come to know Christ apart from the preaching of the Gospel by His Church.
I, for my part, have tried to demonstrate that Christ is essential to our salvation--too essential to merely go on subjective understandings of Him that at any point could topple over into christological heresy. I have upheld the Church, that Christ Himself founded, as the Body that has not only the mandate, but the ability, given by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ gave to us, to teach us about Christ, about the faith, about salvation, and about moral living. Without this Church, there would be no Christianity--or, what there was of Christianity would be one or more of the many heresies rampant in the early centuries.
Our true understanding of who Jesus is is found in and safeguarded by His Church.
Thus, my argument on behalf of the Church (which includes the institution on earth today as well as communion with the saints who have gone before), is really, essentially, an argument for the absolute necessity for knowing Christ truly, as He is.
Otherwise, what essentially separates us from gnostics, JW's, Mormons, or the rest, if not the Church's infallible decrees on the Nature and Person of Jesus Christ?
And that was the true battleground all along – not only in my eyes, but more importantly in the eyes of the Lord.
But we seem to be fighting different wars. You seem to want to stress the importance of knowing Christ. For me, and I hope all the other readers here, that is a given. Where it is not, I hope it is now. I, for my part, have fought to show that in His Church alone can Christ truly be fully known and lived with in that covenant family relationship that you prize so highly. And yet, you deny that this is true, without setting up a viable alternative means for knowing the truth of Christ. Christ is so identified with His Church, that He asked Saul on the road to Damascus, "Why do you persecute Me?" (Acts 9:4) Loren, your own arguments point back to the necessity of the Church which you buck against. "It is hard for you, kicking against the goad" (Acts 26:14).
Jesus is the Son over His own house, whose house we are if hold fast our confidence in Him. Our faith is really that simple and direct.
In one sense, yes it is. In another, it really isn't. For how do we come to know the truth of Christ, to have such confidence in Him, if our knowledge of Him is divorced from the teaching of His Church?
He is commended to every man’s conscience that we may know Him for ourselves, for he is the Head of every man.
If this were true, there would be no heresy, no schism. But the simple fact remains, sinful man can reject the truth, and more, in his fallen sin nature, can hardly grasp the fulness of truth. As such, stumbling by themselves they come to at best a dim understanding of Christ (be it gnostic, Manichaean, docetic, neo-platonic, Arian, Sabellean, or some other heretical idea). Christ had to reveal Himself to us, through His incarnation, death and resurrection (which were still misunderstood by fallen man, and through the gift of His Spirit given to His Church (which still took many years to sort out that revelation into an orthodox, apostolic understanding).
To believe an orthodox christology while denying the orthodoxy of the Church which gave it to you is nonsensical.
But in the things you’ve represented from your Catechisms, I’m sorry to see a pattern of encroachment evinced.
The things that I've presented from the Catechism began with this paragraph:
487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.
This is true not only of Marian dogma, but of everything else that the Church teaches.
Catholicism emerges at last as a steady infringement of our liberty in Christ, a quest for dominion over our faith, through presenting itself as an institutional mediator.
You fail to grasp the mission of the Church, and the fact that it does not come between us and Christ, usurping His authority, but, under His authority, the Church leads people to Christ--to the full understanding of who He is, and the full life of grace that He dispenses to us, especially in the sacraments.
Let us count the ways in which the Lord may be known directly, for ourselves. Through our fealty,
Through our allegiance [to Christ] we come to know Christ. Isn't that somehow circular? How does our "fealty" bring us to Christ when our fealty is misplaced?
through the Scriptures,
Which themselves were written, canonised, preserved, and preached by the Church in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Without the Church, there would be no Scriptures (except the Tanakh, the Old Testament--and that hasn't brought the Jews wholesale to faith in Christ). Moreover, other groups have the Scriptures (like the Unitarians or Jesus-Only Pentecostals) and yet, they don't have a proper faith in Christ, either. Yes, the Scriptures are divine revelation of Christ, but that revelation is only properly understood in the Church.
through conscience and our faith,
If that was enough, there would be none who were non-Christian. It is enough to convict of sin for not having believed, but clearly not enough to bring to belief.
through obedience,
To whom? The Christ to whom we are obedient? How does that lead a non-Christian to Christ? And how is it obedience to reject the Church that He founded?
through praise,
Which is done in the context of the Church, the Christian faithful. Yes, we can praise God individually, on our own, and we should. But the worship of God only reaches its apex within the community of believers.
through communion,
Communion? With other believers? That's the Church. Through the sacrament? That is administered by the Church! Your own list defeats you.
If you simply mean by communing with Christ in an abstract sense, then you have gone in a circle, for this list was supposed to be how we can commune with Christ!
through prayer
Assuming you're praying to the "right" Christ.
and confession,
Which you don't even believe is a sacrament--and one which, again, implies the Church.
and finally through death itself.
Unless, of course, your faith and the whole above list, has been mishandled or misplaced.
But without much effort we may see how Catholicism inserts a mediator at each of those steps,
Because without proper teaching and context, each of these above things can actually lead away from Christ into heresy, on their own. Together, they sum up the very purpose and mission of the Church! A good number of them wouldn't exist apart from the Church!
be they departed saints, counsels, popes, priests or purgatory. As such, our very relationship is mediated and placed at risk.
Our relationship is only at risk when we have the presumption to think that we know better than the divinely instituted Church that God has appointed to teach the truth of the Gospel--not by actually submitting in obedience to it!
When Jesus said “depart from Me, I never knew you”, the Greek word means ‘an acquaintance’, showing that the relationship was intended to work both ways.
And Christianity is a familial, covenantal relationship--one that does not exist in a vacuum, but in a community. A true relationship with Christ cannot and must not be divorced from the same relationship with the rest of His family!
It means they never came to know Him, either:
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(John 17:3)
Amen. But the relevance of the reference and the quotation to your point are lost on me. If someone does not grow closer to the Lord, it is not the Church that is at fault.
I should also be clear in saying this, that I do not necessarily hand the laurels to any of the Protestant churches either. We all must decrease, and He must increase, and an immense effort lies ahead of us all. And it will not be accomplished through the strength of man.
Of course not, but the Church is not the strength of man. It is the divinely instituted Body of Christ, and through Him, and acted upon by the Holy Spirit, it is kept from falling (Matt 16:18). Otherwise, historically speaking, the Church would have destroyed itself long ago!
Gregory, I also want to be clear in a personal sense. I’m not for a minute trying to say that you don’t know the Lord. You passed the ‘spiritual test’ which certainly speaks loudly to a person like me. I also do not mean to impugn anyone else here, but rather, to provoke them to a better perspective.
Well, thank you for that. But I fail to see the "better perspective" in your words.
For the ramifications of this argument go far beyond our debating of this day (2 John 9).
Indeed they do. But the Church is not guilty of the injunction in that passage. Rather, just the opposite. It has systematically condemned corruptions and novel ideas from creeping in, and has refuted heresy when it has arisen. That passage really is a clear indication of the necessity of the Church in the proclamation and the preservation of the Gospel.
I should also be clear, that I believe there are true Christians in almost every church – yes, sometimes in spite of what their church teaches, for God does not leave Himself without a witness among them. Sometimes these persons simply do not know the church teachings that would offend the Lord, so they have stumbled into a relationship with Him in spite of them. Or sometimes they do know of those teachings, but in a quiet consciousness to Christ they reserve themselves from them, and abide in something genuine between the Lord and themselves instead. May God give them courage, for the days of their trial will come.
If you are aware of error, and remain with it, that does not glorify Christ (except perhaps in a few exceptions that I could think of...and even then). It is more important to seek the truth and follow it. If no church meets that criteria, then it has failed, and Christ has failed. If, however, there is one, and I believe there is, then it is our duty as Christians to seek it out and follow Christ. I believe that that Church is the Catholic Church.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Ditto!
Gregory, I know you well enough to know that you’ll want to take ‘bites’ from this posting and comment on them, and I’m sure your catechisms will give you some scholarly answers.
Actually, no catechism this time, but you're right. I couldn't resist. And, like you said, this conversation impacts more than just us.
Yet the heart of these words will remain.
On the issue of knowing Jesus, our hearts are the same, so I trust that it does remain.
For whoever falls upon this rock will be broken; but on whomever it falls it will grind him to powder. The specific arguments behind this perspective have already been made, in earlier comments, and will stand as the Lord opens our understanding of them.
Let the truth be known!
In short, there is nothing left for me to do here but to wish you well, and that I most heartily do. May the Lord be magnified in your life. May He give you strength in the days to come.
Thank you. You as well.
I'm still looking forward to the essential doctrines description on your blog, and will probably comment there, and definitely comment here, when they are up.
God bless
Gregory
:)
Just wanted to bring the count up to 181. It's been at 180 for far too long! Besides, palindromes are pretty to look at.
Christopher J. Freeman
Hey Gregory. I was curious if you could explain to me the RC view of the doctrine of election/predestination?
I can tell you that we believe in predestination and election. I can tell you that we don't believe in it in exactly the same way that Calvinists do. I can tell you that it is a de fide doctrine (we have to believe that God elects people to salvation), but it is also de fide that people have free will. The Catholic faith holds that both are true, and that God predestines in such a way that does not override our free will--but at the same time our free will is not outside the scope of God's elective sovereignty. There are two schools of thought on how this is:
Thomism (named for St. Thomas Aquinas) and Molinism (named for somebody Molina, I think, but I don't know enough about it). Both views are permissible for Catholics to hold, since the Church has only defined that we must believe in predestination and in human free will. It has not specified how that mystery works out. That is why it is precisely a mystery, much like the mystery of the Trinity, or the mystery of the Incarnation. These things are true, though paradoxical. We cannot fully explain, nor really comprehend the fullness of the truth of these matters until we attain the Beatific Vision.
In the meantime, I would suggest checking out Dave Armstrong's articles on the subject, since I haven't studied the matter thoroughly enough to comment more deeply.
Greg, explain to me the Catholic churches view on...EVERYTHING
Wow, I'd forgotten that the comments on this thread are so full that I can't read them properly on my work comp (Windows 98) because they all overlap!
Anyway, Eric, if you're serious, I would love to. However, since everything is rather...expansive, and since, technically, I don't know their views on everything, I'd love to look through it with you on a topical basis, either here (so it could possibly benefit others) or in person, or via email.
So the question is, where would you like to begin?
God bless
Gregory
I like the valuable info you provide in your articles.
I'll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite certain I'll learn lots of new stuff right here!
Best of luck for the next!
Here is my site :: good golden retrievers pups material
If some one wishes to be updated with newest technologies after that
he must be visit this web site and be up to date every day.
Feel free to surf to my web site ... quality mini goldendoodle breeders tips
I've been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts on this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Reading this information So i am happy to express that I've an incredibly good uncanny feeling I discovered
exactly what I needed. I most indubitably will make sure
to don?t overlook this site and provides it a glance regularly.
Take a look at my blog ... cool golden retriever lab mix pictures information
What i do not understood is if truth be told how you are no
longer really a lot more neatly-favored than you might be now.
You're so intelligent. You understand thus considerably in terms of this matter, produced me in my opinion imagine it from numerous various angles. Its like men and women aren't involved except it's something to do with Girl gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding. Always take care of it up!
My web blog ... Important Link
My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post's to be exactly I'm looking
for. Would you offer guest writers to write content for yourself?
I wouldn't mind producing a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write in relation to here. Again, awesome website!
my page: Clicking Here
Stunning story there. What happened after?
Thanks!
my web page; Helpful golden Retrievers pups information
That is a really good tip particularly to
those new to the blogosphere. Short but very accurate information… Thanks for sharing this one.
A must read article!
Look into my web page: Click To Read More
Awesome post.
Have a look at my web page :: Extra Resources
Simply desire to say your article is as surprising. The clearness in your post
is just nice and i can assume you are an expert on this subject.
Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.
Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.
Here is my page visit website
Hi there! This post couldn't be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this post to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
Feel free to visit my web-site :: cool miniature golden retreiver content
Greetings! Very useful advice within this article! It's the little changes which will make the most important changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!
Look at my webpage ... great yellow lab golden retriever mix material
I like reading a post that can make men and women think.
Also, many thanks for permitting me to comment!
Here is my web-site :: Go To My Site
The other day, while I was at work, my cousin
stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be
a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken and
she has 83 views. I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone!
Take a look at my webpage; Useful Content
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the
video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking
about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your site
when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
my blog ... more miniature goldendoodles details
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.
You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something
enlightening to read?
My homepage; more miniature goldendoodles details
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was
great. I do not know who you are but definitely you are
going to a famous blogger if you aren't already ;) Cheers!
Review my web blog; Retriever Lab mix
Fantastic site. A lot of useful information here.
I am sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious.
And certainly, thanks on your effort!
Feel free to surf to my site - Check My Site
Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and
found that it's truly informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I'll appreciate if you
continue this in future. Numerous people will be benefited
from your writing. Cheers!
Check out my site :: golden retriever lab mix puppy
What's up mates, its great post on the topic of teachingand fully defined, keep it up all the time.
Also visit my weblog :: Golden lab Mix
May I just say what a relief to uncover a person
that genuinely understands what they're talking about online. You definitely understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More and more people must look at this and understand this side of your story. It's surprising you
are not more popular because you certainly have the gift.
Also visit my blog post ... golden lab puppies
Post a Comment
<< Home